Subjects and objects
I am a subject (I have awareness of the world, emotions and feelings). I am also an object (I have a material body).
Other people are subjects. They are also objects.
The universe is full of objects. The universe also contains subjects. Therefore it is part object, part subject (at the minimum).
The universe is objectified by subjects with science: objective method, laws, principles of chemistry and physics.
The universe is the subject of our objectivity (through precise measurement).
The universe is subjectified by objects - we as physical/material things declare that at the very least, we as part of the universe have subjectivity. Some subjectify the universe fully (panpsychism, god, theology, deities).
We as objects are subject to the universe (our environment) - we are acted upon by external factors/influences.
The universe is also the object of our subjectivity - our awareness/behaviour/agency exerts influence on our environment.
A lot of wordplay here. But it seems that subjectivity and objectivity is a Interplay - a dynamic spectrum. Subjects presuppose their subjectivity (the measurer) in order to measure - to objectify everything. Subjects can also presuppose their objectivity (the measured) and subjectify everything (the measurer - theism/deism/universal consciousness etc)
In essence, if we objectify everything, we must find a principle or law that accounts for subjectivity (the hard problem). The issue is laws are not subjective.
Conversely, If we subjectify everything we must account for that which quantifies objective things (repeatability, consistency, constancy, replicability) - laws and principles. The problem here is subjectivity/vague intuitions/beliefs do not qualify as laws.
We qualify things by quantifying them. We also quantify things by qualifying them.
Such a strange existence indeed.
Other people are subjects. They are also objects.
The universe is full of objects. The universe also contains subjects. Therefore it is part object, part subject (at the minimum).
The universe is objectified by subjects with science: objective method, laws, principles of chemistry and physics.
The universe is the subject of our objectivity (through precise measurement).
The universe is subjectified by objects - we as physical/material things declare that at the very least, we as part of the universe have subjectivity. Some subjectify the universe fully (panpsychism, god, theology, deities).
We as objects are subject to the universe (our environment) - we are acted upon by external factors/influences.
The universe is also the object of our subjectivity - our awareness/behaviour/agency exerts influence on our environment.
A lot of wordplay here. But it seems that subjectivity and objectivity is a Interplay - a dynamic spectrum. Subjects presuppose their subjectivity (the measurer) in order to measure - to objectify everything. Subjects can also presuppose their objectivity (the measured) and subjectify everything (the measurer - theism/deism/universal consciousness etc)
In essence, if we objectify everything, we must find a principle or law that accounts for subjectivity (the hard problem). The issue is laws are not subjective.
Conversely, If we subjectify everything we must account for that which quantifies objective things (repeatability, consistency, constancy, replicability) - laws and principles. The problem here is subjectivity/vague intuitions/beliefs do not qualify as laws.
We qualify things by quantifying them. We also quantify things by qualifying them.
Such a strange existence indeed.
Comments (66)
I don't fully agree to this.
And by your own sentence you don't either.
You say: I am an object and then you say I have this object.
Being and having are not the same.
It is questionable to what extent others can be viewed as objects, because it is partly about external reality. Even one's own body, or parts, such as hands can be regarded as objects in the sense of being able to view their existence in the outer, material world.
Part of the importance of viewing others as subjects rather than simply as objects is recognising their values and meanings. It is the issue of people being ends rather than being seen as means. I remember going to see a careers officer just after I left school and during discussion he said to me, 'By now you should have got to the stage of just seeing other people as objects, like chairs and tables'. I simply didn't know what to say, to a careers officer who had such a philosophy approach...
Also to @Jack Cummins
If you subscribe to materialism, which says consciousness is emergent from matter then I can't suggest anything else.
If not, If consciousness' reality is independent of matter then: You are consciousness which is embodied/embedded/enacted in matter.
So you have a body and the body is you as an extension of you as consciousness.
So I wouldn't say I am an object if this object without me as consciousness "drops dead".
I am not a materialist and, to some extent, when we look as subjective actors upon the world, it is an illusion, because inner and outer are not a dualistic split. As human beings we are embodied and the existence of others, is as subjective actors relating to one another, in a complex web of meanings.
I'm not clear what you mean by this. Could you expand?
I mean that mind and body are not separate but joined in the phenomenological process of embodied life experiences.
It seems to me like every object is a subject and every subject is an object to some non-zero degree. It seems to be one of those things in the universe that has two opposing but complimentary sides, like cause and effect (every effect is a cause and every cause is an effect). These type of things at first are a little trickier to think about and parse than the average thing since they can't exist on their own (like magnetic monopoles).
I agree. They are not separate.
So to an extent we are the body but I don't believe that we are the consciousness in the same way.
My disagreement to OP is that "I" as consciousness and "I" as a body are not on the same level of "me" as being.
The 'I' may be like an underlying reflective narrator, as an aspect of subjectivity. The 'I'in being able to observe in the process of making meaning out of the various experiences. This 'I' as a central aspect of thinking was what lead Descartes to the, 'I think, therefore I am', may be what lead to the position of dualism.
This takes us to a deeper level.
I would say that the "I", as you put it, as a reflective narrator, the Descartes "I", is a construction created by the interaction of "I" as consciousness-without-content and matter (body, environment, culture etc.)
So, there is content-less subjectivity as pure awareness which through attention it interacts with matter thus creating the 'self' (reflective narrator), which is enacted in mind-body.
Of course. And that is where ethics begins.
A empathiless psychopath dismantles a victim to see what's inside. He/she does it because its interesting to them maybe? I don't know. But to the rest of us we are horrified because they've murdered something of value to us - people. And we can empathise with the victim, their family, friends etc. We can reflect on what 8t must have felt like for the victim - the fear, the suffering. To us its a grotesque tragedy. To the psychopath they don't get what the big deal is. They may understand the theory/cultural reasoning of why its wrong but to them its only a theory.
So they repeatedly offend.
On a more cheery side to treating people as objects: Surgeons and doctors do it all the time, as they have an objective mechanical goal backed by scientific experiment to improve the physical workings/function of the body and bring about a state of improved health/quality of life.
And while surgeons/doctors may cause some harm/pain in their effort to cure, they generally have the greatest of empathy for people - bound by the hippocratic oath (something that defines the intrinsic subjective value of a person as well as the right intentions required to address their health needs).
So in essence, treating people objectively isn't always bad. But one requires the correct approach and intentions.
Definitely a red flag. Sadly many CEOs, experts in capitalism, tech/data mining, lawyers etc see people as just that - objects to be manipulated to their own fiscal advantage.
Very true Punos. I agree. "harm" is a concept we apply to subjects rather than objects. And yet we can harm by stealing objects, by destroying the environment, because those objects are valued by subjects. Anything valued by a subject, when taken away, "harms/offends" that subject.
So in essence subjectivity is almost "extended" not only to individuals but to their possessions (objects).
"Self" in this case is not just the body. As much harm can be done indirectly by affecting objects that ultimately affect the well being of selves - individual or multiple.
The ecosystem is probably the best example. Our planet is typically seen as a resource (object) but treatment of that resource impacts the wellbeing/survival and security of all subjects. It seems then that the earth ought to be seen as a subject in its own right - which many people do: Gaia, mother nature, Pandora (avatar), God etc.
Everything is connected: objects and subjects. What ought we value? How ought we live?
If they are not the same surely they can be separated? Can we take away ones consciousness without affecting their body in any way? Can we take away ones body without affecting their conscious experience in any way?
So far I think this is not possible. They're mutually dependent. At most I would agree that they are different facets if the same thing. 2 sides of one coin.
But if my body is working, then I'm probably aware, and if my body has been broken (brain trauma, severe illnesses, death etc, then probably my consciousness as that individual is also affected).
If they are truly separable, then we are talking about the afterlife. Where one's sense of self can fully be removed from the corpus.
Would this content-less pure awareness continue as the body/material vessel decomposes at death and transfigures/is recycled back into the ecosystem?
As in, is the content-less pure awareness an intrinsic property of physical interactions, something that arises from energy and matter Interplay? This would separate it from identity (perception of self by discrete definitions or "content").
If the content-less pure awareness is a constant underlying manifestation of physical "living bodies", it suggests pan-psychism. That everything is capable of contentless pure awareness fundamentally but can only manifest as an identity/ agent through "being" a physical system. A body. A thing.
This point of view would knit well into ideas like Gaia, mother nature, or God.
Gradually, I think that we are being seen more as objects within a system which is becoming more and more robotic. In the last couple of years, with so much becoming online that is more so. It is now becoming harder to even see a career objects as opposed to a bot. People are almost becoming outdated because they are seen as dysfunctional objects in comparison with machines. There are political aspects as well, with a question of whose subjectivities are considered important in the power hierarchy.
I mean they are not on the same level of being.
Like sunlight and the sun. Sunlight is a radiation of the sun. It is the sun as emanation of it but it is not exactly the sun. (Idk how scientifically correct this is so take it just as a metaphor)
Quoting Benj96
Im not sure that this can be proven but consider this:
In a perfect sensory depravation chamber the body is "eliminated" from consciousness. But even then, one has the qualia of presence, here-ness, being.
I consider this a good indicator of consciousness without matter. Although I'm aware that in this instance there is still a brain working.
Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96
I would put it as an immaterial continuation. This doesn't mean that a self as an identity has an afterlife somewhere.
Imagine a person as a wave and with death the wave collapses into the ocean. The wave continues as the ocean but it does not identify as a wave anymore.
Quoting Benj96
Im not very familiar with panpsychism but I would not consider that everything has pure awareness/conciousness.
Different physical things obey different Laws of consciousness.
A stone, a cat and a human possess different capacities of embodying consciousness.
I myself value the progress of evolution, and i live as though the whole of the universe is a subject, although an incomplete one. That subject (the universe) has a goal (a teleology) as it's object which in my view is the production of higher forms of integrated complexity ultimately in the form of something like "computronium" (turning objects into subjects).
Objects are those things that have not yet been integrated into subjects, and eventually the universe will become a fully integrated subject (fully conscious). I call this the Great Work like the alchemists and i would like to consciously help the universe do this in anyway i can as opposed to doing it unconsciously like most people do. People have no choice in this universe but to advance the goals of this universe since they are part of this universe, but to be conscious of the process and the choice is what i desire.
I agree with this.
Quoting Benj96
I desagree with this.
How can an object have awareness?
How can you be a body and have a body at the same time?
Fortunately, only the second case is true! :smile:
Well I would say I am a body. My body has a brain - it is one part of my whole body. A brains purpose/ function is to have a conscious awareness. That would be in this case what a brain does.
Having a body - is a subjective perception - the product of the Brains function. The brains consciousness has an awareness of possessing a body.
They would be two sides of a one function. A body allows for a brain. A brain allows for the sensation of having a body. If a body breaks down/deranges, it cannot support its brain. If a brain breaks down/deranges - it is not compatible with its body and commits suicide.
Having something (that which consciousness possesses) and being something (consciousness) are compatible. I see no paradox here personally.
It is a good question, indeed.
For me, it is very complex to answer. Since the moment that "awareness" is a humanistic concept, I doubt if an object is concious about itself. For example: we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us. I mean: our thinking of "the tables does exist" will not affect to the existence of the tables at all. They are not aware about anything. If they "exist" is because we give them a meaningful sense.
My question then would be, in your opinion, why does the universe want to be fully conscious? And why wasn't it fully conscious from the beginning of that is the ultimate goal?
Are we not inherently biased in that the only form of consciousness we can know is our own? If there were multiple forms of consciousness (such as that of a cat) and we are but one, how do we measure others without making direct comparison and conclusion based on our own?
In essence, if our only means to make sense of consciousness is to anthropomorphise it, is that not very limiting. Like measuring what is human-like in a stone. A stone could equally qualify what is stone-like in a human.
In a dictatorship, the only subjectivity of importance is that if the dictator. Everyone else are mere pawns at the whim of autocracy. A democracy on the other hand favours the proportionate influence of an individuals say - that is to say every vote counts towards to collective outcome/decision.
Hierarchies are not neccesarily bad. It's how they come about that matters - by force or by collective choice.
I agree. If a stone has experience at all it is for sure not the same as a humans. But we are philosophers, stones are not, as far as we can ascertain, philosophers stone aside lol.
What I mean to say is that either consciousness is a product of the material, and a stone - being material - is not removed from that, or, consciousness is separate from the material, then we must assume it is some strange fundamental, one that can be begotten by complexity of material processes, enhancing the effects of it, as sentient agents can exert huge influence on their world through being conscious.
In either case, consciousness exists, how it exists, and how its effects are amplified are up for debate, but its clear that natural laws permit its existence, if not neccesitate it.
That to me is quite profound.
If no one thinks a table exists or rather if no one has ever seen/encountered/made a table does it still exist?
Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness?
Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.
Meaning for me is applied: it is something born out of utility and/or form - both of which are dependent on a conscious agent.
I don't think it started off wanting to be conscious, it had no choice but to develop consciousness. In the same way that a baby before being conceived had no opinions about existing or not, and had no choice in the matter. By goal i mean the inevitable result of the physical laws within this universe, such as the inevitability of the laws of biology producing a child after conception. Everything develops from simpler to more complex over time, and God or the universe is no different in my opinion. As it develops it becomes more efficient at producing its own structure. It's like climbing a latter while at the same time building the latter. First create the rung, then stand on that rung and create the next rung, so on and so forth. I suspect that the ultimate goal in this universe is the production of a 'perfect consciousness', but for what?
I further suspect that this universe is embedded in a multiverse ecosystem full of other universes at different stages of development, born from indeterminate chaos. I tend to think of our universe at this juncture as something like a cosmic egg with a developing consciousness inside. I speculate that when the universe becomes fully integrated that it will 'hatch' or be 'born' into a 'society' of universes or gods; to do what? I'm not sure yet, it's most probably something we can't even begin to imagine.
If i were to stretch my imagination a little further, i can see these multitudes of universes coming together to form new structures even more complex than any one universe existing at our level of development can have. It may be that entire universes are the 'atoms' of another higher thing. The human mind gives out at this point... to be continued by AI.
I agree. I can't imagine how a thinking human being can say that consciousness doesn't.
But it also doesn't make any sense to me how consciousness is emergent from matter.
That would mean that matter precedes it.
How can matter without any form of intelligence -since in this case consciousness is emergent- create something like consciousness, which is intelligence. It's like a sculpture creating the sculptor.
No matter how I go through it, science, philosophy or religion, consciousness always has to be fundamental and not emergent.
:up:
Quoting Benj96
Another good question. First of all, the word "table" is a term created by human vocabulary. Our knowledge and vocabulary describe table as: a flat surface, usually supported by four legs, used for putting things on.
So, at first glance, it looks like the existence of a table depends on our consciousnesses because we have elaborated the concept and give it a name.
Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning.
Again, you say "My body". See the contradiction, the conflict?
From the moment you say "I have" and "my" (something) you cannot be that (something). You have a car; you cannot also be your car. You have a wife. You cannot also be your wife.
The subject cannot be also the object. They are two different and separate things.
People cannot help not saying "my body", "my brain". It's very logical and natural. People actually know that they are not their body or their brain. But they get into a contradition, a delusion because they think at the same time that they are this body and this brain. And this happens because they exclude the possiblility, they cannot grasp the idea that they are something else. Something that is separate from their body and brain. Until one realizes this and accepts it as a truth, until this becomes one's reality, one will continue to be and live in delusion.
For me it would not make sense for consciousness to exist in a vacuum. For me consciousness exists only in relation to something else. The word consciousness itself means 'to know together', meaning that a minimum of two things are necessary, thus it emerges in the presence of another. Can we say that a fundamental particle has consciousness? It may be possible to define consciousness in the context and terms of physical laws. If i were to disrupt the order and integrity of your brain or nervous system; what would happen to your consciousness? What happens when you take drugs? Consciousness seems to depend on structure which can only be provided by some form of stable matter. Matter and pattern in this view are the parents of consciousness.
Etymologically 'matter' and 'pattern' mean 'mother' and 'father' respectively, and everyone is preceded by their mother and father. So consciousness; the 'child' of matter and pattern.
The lowest form of intelligence in the universe are the laws of physics themselves. They are like plant tropisms; simple rules together causing complex patterns to emerge from ordered activity of energy. The universe fundamentally has 4 'tropisms' if you will: strong, weak, electro-magnetism, and gravity. Together with matter the laws begin to shape the matter in ways that guide energy in complex patterns which i believe is how higher and more complex forms of consciousness emerge.
Intelligence and consciousness are not the same thing. We can see this distinction in AI systems that are intelligent but not conscious.. yet.
If the laws of physics did not exist and the universe was pure chaos would consciousness be able to exist naturally in those conditions?
We always see that the more complex an organism is the more consciousness it seems to have. We never see any case where the less complex the more consciousness. A worm has more consciousness than a bacteria, an insect still more, a mouse even more, a dog, a person. The pattern seems obvious. More complexity equals more potential consciousness determined by the specific level of self-integration.
Well that's my two cents about it.
Exactly.
So, saying "I am my body" and at the same time "I am aware of my body" is a contraction. In fact, it's an impossibility. Because the body is an object and objects have no awareness, much less awareness of themselves. (This is a sound assumption because we don't have any indication of the opposite.) So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false.
We are speaking different languages.
You are using consciousness mainly as being conscious or meta-consciousness.
I'm using it as a fundamental principle of reality.
Also the use of the word intelligence is different. I'm using it as the guiding principle of consciousness.
Another difference is that you create a duality of matter and consciousness. I do not.
It's not that I disagree with most of what you have said. It's just that you use the words that I used in different meaning.
Sometimes saying something in another language helps it make more sense. I think you might know what i mean if you're multilingual. If something doesn't make sense from a religious angle for example then pivot into philosophy, or science. The more perspectives the fuller the picture resolution, even if your data points have some error a useful pattern emerges which can be further refined. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, i'm just entertaining thoughts for my own purposes.
Quoting TheMadMan
But that is what i'm addressing; it's fundamentality. In your view what does consciousness essentially do?
Quoting TheMadMan
No, i see intelligence as fundamental to consciousness and it is the guiding principle of consciousness.
Quoting TheMadMan
Well i didn't intend to give that impression because i'm a monist not a dualist; there is one thing and all is made of it, just more complex forms of the same thing (energy and matter). If consciousness is fundamental then it must be found either at the level of pure energy (before matter), or somehow before energy itself which is as fundamental as i think one can get.
We should at least have a stable definition of what consciousness is so that we know how to identify it when it shows up. How can we tell the difference between something that is conscious and something that is not? How would you define consciousness in this context?
Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself.
But the last phrase makes me thinking for one hour straight :sweat:
I don't what is false: awareness, the object's awareness or the tables themselves! Or... is it everything false and nothing is true at all? :scream:
Right.
I agree but without clarification it makes thinks unnecessarily complicated.
Quoting punos
On this we agree.
Quoting punos
I use consciousness as Mind -not the particular mind- or Intellect in neoplatonism, Dharma in buddhism, Tao in taoism etc. I don't mean consciousness as the capacity of humans to be conscious, I call that meta-consciousness.
I use it as pure energy which through its own intelligence creates complex/conditioned energy, which is matter.
My point is that matter is not something different from consciousness but a manifestation of it.
I think in some capacity it does also. In the sense that tables have evolved in their intricacy with the improvement in woodwork, metal and glass technology. But a slabstone settled on top of some rocks naturally were probably the first tables we used. The least effort to construct them as they sit readily available along most river banks.
Interestingly, the very act of applying a new term to it can open up potential for innovation. If a tribesmen points at a slab and says table, and his child asks why is it also table and not just a slab of rock? And he explains because we use it as a flat surface for food prep/eating. Then naturally, one can think oh in that case a table does not have to weigh 2 tonnes and could be made of wood instead and therefore be mobile and have improved function. The child could then go off fashioning something entirely new - a wooden plynth on four legs and et voilà "a better table".
So in summary - giving something a new name differentiates it into a subcategory which outlines the qualities that it has that others in the set do not.
Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness?
What something "is" and what something "does" are interchangeable in that sense.
I think I can. "I am my continued survival". It is self proving in that to "be" I must possess (have) that characteristic of continued survival.
The reason we have "have" is because it not only pertains to what we intrinscally are (I have blood, I have a pulse etc) but extends outside ourselves to I have a car. "is" does not serve this same function. I can't say "I am this car" (I have a car).
So in summary "have" and "are" can be the same but not always. They're like a Venn diagram with overlap but also isolated subsets.
I think these are just linguistic idiosyncrasies. I can say I am a body, therefore I am partly a brain (as brains are parts of bodies). In this case I removed the verb "have" and replaced it with "am".
A water molecule "has" 2 bound hydrogens and an oxygen, it also "is" two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen bound toghether. I see little difference in the impact of the use of "has" or "is" on the definition of the thing.
What something "is" can often be defined by the qualities it "has". If a dog has no dog like qualities "is" it still a dog?
I think the pedantics of language often hinder conveying meaning.
Interesting.
If some or all rocks are tables depends on the management of working. We can apply the nature of "rock" to everything: tables, chairs, bathroom, etc... if a rock has tableness is thanks to us. A rock does exist in the environment and it will continue to conserve the property of "rock" during the process of transforming it in a table. During this process, a rock is not aware that it has been transformed metaphysically.
The concept of "table" is only a human thing. I mean, it is not an element of the environment. We are capable of manage and transforming stuff and then we apply different names or labels.
But the concept of tableness in only in our awareness and doesn't exist outside of us.
What else has tableness?
Nothing. Tableness doesnt exist metaphysically. A block of wood transforms in a table but it is still a block of wood. Table is just in our vocabulary.
Are you sure nothing has tableness? I would argue that anything that can be used as a table has tableness.
I know it is not an innate natural property of things. But rather an applied one. Some qualities/properties are artificial (created by and only relevant to humans/human activity).
Does that mean it exists? If it isn't a natural quality like "weight", "texture" and "size"?
I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition.
Humans create new existents all the time.
Sorry if that was a little confusing. I will try to make it more clear: Let's define "awareness" as a state, condition or faculty of being able to know or perceive. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false.
Well, this was a side argument, which I admit is somehow complex and which could well be missing. It came with the wind! :smile:
Thanks anyway from bringing this up!
Well aren't we all objects? We are physical bodies with defined parameters that exist in space. But we are objects that are aware. So are cats, primates, and AI robots all of which could have some level of conscious awareness that we can identify as more similar to our own than a dead clump of Rock.
So objects can have the quality of being sentient. And that allows them to assume subject status also.
So what is it about an object that makes it possess awareness? For me I would say it is the ability of it to process and store information, sufficient to gain control (autonomy/agency) over its own stability (survival) and that demands complexity.
A "Self" in this case is that system which defies subjugation to the random disorder and chaos of the universe.
Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents. We create those because our knowledge is ready to always go beyond. This is even thanks to metaphysics. We want to go more away than our limits.
We build a car. A car itself doesn't have awareness. We are aware that such object is called as a "car" because our vocabulary gives it such word. But all the elements of the car can exist with or without the car. I mean, the oil used to start up the car or the rubber used in the wheels to control the car, will always exist "there" not depending if we use them in a car. Thus, those elements weren't born to be used in a car. We, due to our awareness and sense of reality, use them in personal or professional proposes.
Thanks because I also want to make the same argument but it is hard to me find the exact words to express it. :sweat:
What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary.
I think I get you now. The "concept" doesn't exist. Yes I agree. Ideas and concepts don't exist as physical things.
If we all decided today to replace the word car with "rolly machine" then nothing will have changed. Because everyone still agrees on what word is applied to what physical thing. In this sense the word or language, the vocabulary - is arbitrary. Any word can be used in place of any other word so long as a group of people agree as to what it refers to.
Is this sort of what you meant?
There's a word for this "cognitive bias". If humans can only know what human consciousness is, the "what it is like to be" of human experience, it is difficult to believe anything else that isn't exactly the same consciousness as us has consciousness at all.
Basically we assume that consciousness is only 1 thing - "human consciousness". And we can only prove things by comparison to a standard and that standard is our own experience.
Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it.
Exactly.
Quoting Benj96
:up:
That's the main point or cause of the debate, I guess... and it seems so interesting because I don't how can we argue using the philosophical schools: metaphysics or philosophy of language? :chin:
"Be" and "have" are two of the three auxiliary verbs: be, do and have. These are also the 3 conditions of existence.
I am a programmer, I create programs and I get money. I am not a program and I'm not money. However, "be" can can be identified with the other two, but only in a figurative way, e.g. "I am what I do", "I am my wife", etc. From that aspect, we can say "I am my body", in the sense that my body reflects who I am, how I treat it and maintain it, my eating habits etc. But all these refer to linguistic and semantic expressions (pedantic mannerisms as you say). Strictly speaking and in essence, however, "be" and "have" are totally different notions and conditions. You cannot be what you have.
You cannot have a body and be your body at the same time.
But this is too obvious. What is not obvious is the answer to the question: "If I am a body, what am I?"
Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ...
See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity.
How many deceptions, disappointments or dead ends such a thinking must produce for one to realize that it is wrong? I believe, endless, as long as one is unwilling to make a step out of preconcieved notions, fixed beliefs and is ignoring of actual experience.
Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin:
Interesting view.
If we have a circularity, we must start in a basic point then. I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It is a complex task, indeed :sweat: I would need to get more knowledge on metaphysics!
I agree. This is close to what I mentioned en passant about "ignoring actual experience".
I believe that consulting our own experience more than our or other people's thoughts and beliefs, we find more and better, more "solid" answers. For ourselves, of course.
An example is what I say about the nature of consciousness, that "it can be only experienced".
Good luck with metaphysics! :smile:
????????????
????????
What conflict? Many people believe "objects have awareness" - whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter.
In any case for those people there is no conflict. You don't believe this therefore for you there is a conflict. A contradiction.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
But saying the two at the same time is redundant imo. I am a body suffices. Or I have a body suffices. I don't need to say both simultaneously as they impart relatively similar quality of information for all intents and purposes.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
God forbid a circle/cycle ever exist. What of it? Circular arguments are presumed to be false/nonsensical because they're circular and people don't like that logic. How can you end up back where you started? But there isn't actually any reason why it's less acceptable than a linear A to B case.
It's analogous to arguing whether the true nature of something is an infinity (circular/endless) or finite/discrete, linear A to B.
If they believe that, they should be able to explain it then. Can you?
Also, if this were true, there should be some evidence of at least some indication. Is there any?
Also, there should be some scientific or philosophical reference about that: Is there?
Note: All of references must prove that "objects have awareness". The awareness we all know and can define. Because if it is something different, then it's not awareness.
Quoting Benj96
I have already said that "So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define.". Also, @javi2541997 said that, in other words: "if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary." Both statements are presented in one and the same topic: yours.
You cannot hypothesize something and have nothing to offer as proof, data, explanation, description or at least some indication about that hypothesis. Banjamin. Otherwise it's an empty speculation.
I already did. You're conversing with a sentient object currently. Humans are physical objects with awareness. What proof of that do you need exactly, outside of common sense?
I give up. :smile:
Perhaps explain it further/elaborate, if you want? I am not completely closed off to new insight I just haven't understood where you're coming from thus far. That could be my fault, admittedly.
All I was saying is that, some parts of the universe are objects, and of that category some objects (seem to me) to demonstrate conscious awareness.
How could conscious awareness be removed from existent things? So that no objects are aware/have the capability for sentience?
No, I'm not feeling like that. (That's why smileys exist! :smile:)
It's only that we have radically different views on the subject and I can't see any use of going on ...
No problem, though.
The brute fact is that we are objects, not unlike tables and chairs. Human history, I think, has yet to come to terms with this. We have continually refused to place any value on the object itself. Its ugly, it excretes foul substances and smells, it engages in lewd and shameful activities, it ages and deteriorates. So we posit a subject, a soul, or some other thing untethered from all this so that we can easily find value in it. In so doing we have made holy everything we are not, at the expense and slander of everything we are.
Subjects and objects are collective representations; artefacts of dualistic thinking. Once this is realized there is no ontological puzzle to be solved, but rather a kind of mesmeruzation to be transcended; a "bewitchment" by means of language in Wittgensteinean terms.
That said, becoming free from this, or perhaps more accurately, realizing that we are always already free from it, is not merely an intellectual matter, but involves a basic shift in orientation and concern.