Continuum of Consciousness (or the answers to nothing and everything) (1125 hits)
Category: Quotes & Stories -> PoetryLabels: ETS_Essays
Rating: 1 on 19 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Brad <electrictoothsyndrome.at.msn.com> (View user info) at 2004-05-25 23:10:41 EDT
Since the dawn of his existence, man has probed the deepest catacombs of his thoughts in the hopes of finding that meaning of life that his heart of hearts insists is there. Out of the womb of this thinking many questions have been born: What are we?--Why are we here?--Did something purposefully create us, or are we but an accident in the evolution of a self-existing nature?--If something did create us, then by what manner did that creator come into being?--and if all this is by unfolding chance, then under what select circumstances did it come about? All of these questions are the products of consciousness and the innate, uniquely human ability to reflect on ourselves, to think about our thoughts, and to wonder about our mysterious origin.
What is the substance of a thought? What exactly is going on inside our heads that makes us who we are? What is this consciousness that allows me to ask these questions in the first place? Before we can even attempt an answer, we must first gather observations on the nature of this consciousness. The reality that one person perceives could be vastly different from the reality of the person standing beside him, and even greater differences arise when compared to the conscious state of lower animals, so the first thing that we must do is find the commonalities, the invariable aspects of human consciousness. In order to better understand these similarities, we must start at the beginning, from birth, and make our way through the process of development. This trip will lead us through the different levels of consciousness and hopefully to some kind of conclusion about the nature of this great enigma called LIFE.
Birth and the Pure Consciousness
The human mind is a structure, and, as with all structures, it has its limits and its potentials. It is within this set of limits and potentials that man has fashioned out his modes of logic. Just as a computer can store and process only the kinds of information for which it is programmed, the mind can store and process only the kinds of information which its structure makes it capable of storing and processing. For example: men were born with the potential to comprehend mathematical relationships such as multiplication and division and to invent ways of using this knowledge practically to better the quality of their lives, dogs have no such qualities. This fundamental set of limits and potentials is determined by the hereditary make-up of the brain. At birth these elemental characteristics are present, but the mind has no stored information about its environment and is, therefore, in a world of complete disorientation--like an astronaut in space who does not know which way is up or down. The concepts of up and down are here undefined, because they require some point of reference such as the ground to exist, and in space there is no such point of reference. It is the lack of these necessary reference-points that prohibits the infant mind from being able to understand the structured concepts of developed minds. The mind in this infantile state resides, rather, within a sort of thoughtless limbo that I will henceforth refer to as 'pure consciousness.' Pure consciousness as I will define it is the complete alienation of the consciousness from mental stimuli; that is, the consciousness leads sort of a detached existence, being only conscious without any means by which to process a thought. The infant is, here, aware of its environment, but it responds to physical stimuli only by means of inborn instinctive tendencies, perhaps arising from a basic understanding of when it is comfortable and when it is not; tendencies such as crying when hungry or in pain allow the infant to communicate its situation to otherwise unknowing parents. This state of consciousness in infants is the "tabula rasa," or 'blank slate' which seventeenth century philosopher John Locke described in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke held that development is dependent upon knowledge, and that knowledge is gained through experience (Frost 256).
This view is pretty much self-evident in light of the manner in which we learn. In the absence of experience there is the pure consciousness. In order to learn, the brain must have some amount of information on which to draw conclusions about the nature of the world in which it exists. Without the existence of this critical information, learning cannot take place; but if this hypothesis be true, then the next natural question is: 'If the mind begins blank, and development is dependent on knowledge, then how does the blank mind ever gain the necessary amount of knowledge to begin development?'. The problem resulting from this question seems to blow an irreparable hole in this view of the process of development, but as we shall see, the characteristics embodied in pure consciousness as I have here defined it form a sufficient ground for the roots of learning (as we now understand it) to take hold.
Physical and Metaphysical Consciousness
As I have already stated, an infant resting in pure consciousness is aware of its environment, but cannot 'think' on it as such, because of a lack of stored information about the environment. This awareness of an organism of the environment in which it functions is the aspect of consciousness that I will henceforth refer to as 'physical consciousness.' Physical consciousness is that part of consciousness that perceives itself to be, through sensory experience, physically connected to the environment in which it lives. Physical consciousness is responsible for monitoring the information coming into the brain through the five senses and providing reactionary impulses based on how this information acts on the mind. Whether or not these impulses are carried out in action by the individual depends upon whether or not these actions would bring the individual closer to a meeting of his needs or desires. This is where the realm of conscious thought and conscious will comes into play. This is the part of our selves that is responsible for our identity, our knowledge of self. I will call this realm of consciousness, for consistency purposes 'metaphysical consciousness.' Metaphysical consciousness begins to occur when the brain has built a sufficient repository of memories from its contact with the environment to begin to recognize patterns within them and to make categorical comparisons between them. It then becomes possible to relate new thoughts to these categories, and the great complex building of knowledge is begun, the categories changing as reflection constantly occurs. The way in which the categories form depends on the needs and desires of the individual.
In infancy, these needs are rather simple. Generally, the infant wants only to eat and stay free from physical discomfort, so any action that is observed to fulfill these needs for itself or for another person are emulated, and, if reinforced by a fulfillment of the initial desire, are adopted as common practice; but as the mind develops, these needs and desires become increasingly more complex because previous learning begins to come into play in their forming, and needs become more the product of conscious decision instead of unconscious tendency. As W.D. Commins and Barry Fagin, co-authors of Principles of Educational Psychology, put it:
"Some of these [needs and motives], such as hunger, or love, are so general or 'primary' in nature that they may commonly be taken for granted. There are others, however, more specific, 'secondary,' or 'derived,' which cannot be easily assumed to be present because they are likely to have a particular developmental story behind them and are distinctly the product of the child's interaction with his particular physical and social environment (Commins 37)."
This growing complexity is due, for the most part, to the expectations placed upon an individual by parents and society. The authors went on to say:
"It is often the case that the child must first be made to want the things upon which we as adults place such high value before the mental development leading to their attainment is undertaken. Much of our attempted education of the child may not be very effective unless we first succeed in bringing home to him the fact that he has need of it. Otherwise it may have no vital meaning for him, he may see no relation between it and the more general or ordinary goals of his activity. Simply being exposed to a thing will not bring about learning (Commins 37-38)."
In this way, countless generations have been introduced into the world, being taught the ways of the generation before them, being seduced into thinking that society has something that they need or desire, being exposed to a world where one collective mentality generally rules, and to think or act any other way would be too painful to be appealing; but this seemingly perfect sociological principle has one big gaping hole in it. It comes in the form of individual thought patterns. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on the planet, then all things are at risk." As individuals discover new things, think new thoughts, and communicate these thoughts to one another, in turn provoking even more new thoughts, the collective mentality slowly starts to change. This change may be imperceptible; it may even take generations to recognize, but it is there. Sometimes these changes occur very quickly, sometimes following, or resulting in war. Every so often, however, a Copernicus, a Darwin, or an Einstein comes along and almost single-handedly rocks the foundation of a society's belief system with no weapons other than their thoughts. (Emerson 162)
Be it slow and imperceptible, or fast and revolutionary, society is constantly changing. It's really amazing how something as seemingly insubstantial as thought can so quickly and drastically change the face of the world! The effects of thought on the individual mind are no less amazing, for sometimes one thought, one single realization can change the way a person thinks forever. How can this be so? How is it that years of learning can sometimes be totally blown apart and restructured in a matter of seconds just by thinking one single thought? One can only think that there is something very significant to be deduced from this question concerning the very nature of our metaphysical consciousness.
I have already compared knowledge to a building wherein memories and concepts act as beams. In real buildings, to remove a beam from the structure would mean that everything that was dependent upon that beam for support would collapse, likewise, to remove a memory or concept from the building of knowledge would result in a collapse of every other memory or concept that depended on it for support and would constitute a complete restructuring of the individual's beliefs. This is why Galileo was brought before the Inquisition in Rome in 1616 and again in 1633 to renounce his claim that Jupiter has orbiting moons, because if that were true, then that meant that everything did not necessarily have to revolve around the earth as was then believed, and if everything did not revolve around the earth, then that put man not at the center of creation but in a relatively insignificant place in the universe. The church leaders at the time saw this possibility as a great threat to their long-standing beliefs and central influence on medieval society despite Galileo's efforts to convince them otherwise. We find a very similar situation in more modern times with Darwin's theory of evolution, which seems to discredit the Bible's account of Adam and Eve. Many people, consequently, refused to believe it, for if the story of Adam and Eve is questionable, then what's to stop people from questioning the entire Bible? And if the entire Bible were found to be incredible, then where else could people turn for a sense of security and purpose? There was even one case in Tennessee where a teacher was fired for teaching the theory. This just goes to show how far some people will go in order to protect their beliefs. Nietzsche said,
"Philosophical systems are shining mirages. The philosophers all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic;...whereas in fact a prejudicial proposition, idea or 'suggestion,' which is generally their heart's desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event (Durant 421)."
Nietzsche believed that our conscious thoughts are controlled by an unconscious "will to power" made of a deep, unseen desire to make the world work in our favor; but if this is true, then Nietzsche's own philosophy is the product of his own hypothetical "will to power." This is what is called a self-referential paradox. It is like when Socrates says, "What Plato is about to say is a lie," and Plato replies, "Socrates has spoken truly." If Socrates has spoken truly, then he has spoken falsely, and if Plato has spoken truly, then he has also spoken falsely. This is the kind of paradox one constantly encounters when trying to form a solid theory about the nature of human psychology, simply because human psychology is used in the formulation of the theory. It is like having only one wrench that is broken, and then trying to fix it with your only broken wrench. James W. Sire, author of The Universe Next Door perhaps said it best when he said,
"Without matter's functioning there would be no thought. But matter functions by a nature of its own. There is no reason to think that matter has any interest in leading a conscious being to true perception or to logical (that is, correct) conclusions based on accurate observation and true presuppositions (Sire 83-84)."
The "presuppositions" of which he is speaking are in the acceptance of the validity of our modes of logic. Any time we say that something is 'true,' we mean that it is true based on the modes of logic that we have previously accepted as being reliable. There are two such accepted modes of logic. The first is deduction. Deduction starts with a set of assumptions called "premises" that are taken to be true without further question. An example of such a premise is: all living dogs have brains. Since no one has ever seen or known of a living dog that did not have brains, this statement would be generally accepted as true, the one-tenth of a percent of the population that might not accept it as true is probably locked away somewhere. Another premise I might make is: my dog, Spot, is a living dog. Since all living dogs have brains, and Spot is a living dog, then it can be concluded by process of deduction that Spot has a brain. In this mode of reasoning, the conclusion contains no more information than is already contained in the premises; the information is only stated in a different way so as to make the inferred fact more obvious.
The other mode of logic we, as humans, employ is called inductive reasoning. Like deduction, induction starts from a set of assumptions, but unlike deduction which will always be true granted the initial assumptions are true, induction cannot always be assumed to be true, no matter how true the premises on which it is founded might be. For example: by means of induction, I reason that because the last time I saw my car keys they were in my coat pocket, I will find them there now. It may be entirely true that I last saw my car keys in my coat pocket, but whether or not they will still be there cannot be determined by means of induction alone. I must first observe them to be there, before I can determine whether my reasoning was correct. In situations where this decisive observation is impossible, it can never be determined with any certainty if a hypothesis formed by means of inductive reasoning will always hold true. Likewise, it is impossible to determine the exact validity of the premises for deduction because these premises are based on invented concepts from which the logic of deduction cannot deviate, such as definitions or axioms.
It is, therefore, fruitless to try and formulate a solid theory of human consciousness using modes of logic that are based on assumption and are, themselves, the products of the same human consciousness which the theory is being formed to explain. So, to assume any philosophy, even that which is based on the recurring patterns of logic, requires a certain amount of presupposition, or faith that these patterns of logic have been properly recognized in the first place. In order to make proper judgement on the solidity of logic as a means for discovering the nature of reality, we would have to assume a form of consciousness other than Human--we would have to become like gods. It is as the author of The Bible's "Ecclesiastes" said in chapter one, verses thirteen and fourteen,
"I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit (Holy Bible 612-613)."
Bibliography
Commins, W.D., & Fagin, B. Principles of Educational Psychology. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1954.
Durant, W. The Story of Philosophy. New York: Washington Square Press, 1961.
Emerson, R.W. Emerson's Essays, "Circles." New York: Gramercy Books, 1993.
Frost, S.E. Jr. Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers. New York: Dolphin Books, 1962.
Holy Bible, The. (King James Version). New York: American Bible Society, 1816.
Sire, J.W. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1976.
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-02-11 01:40:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by KoolMung (user info) at 2004-12-06 14:44:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by eIectrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-10-23 18:49:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If sex were fast food, you'd have and M-shaped arch over your head.
Submitted by equaIizer (user info) at 2004-10-21 00:48:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I will not torment the emotionally frail.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-10-18 15:11:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
recalc
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-10-14 22:25:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
According to Buddha, there is no thought necessary... Thoughts do exist, though. They are the very definition of our limitation. More to come on this and the nature of God soon. Stay tuned.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2004-10-14 22:22:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
thought provoking, but according to Buddha, there is no thought...
Submitted by equalizer (user info) at 2004-09-14 03:28:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Equalized
Submitted by whiskey_jack (user info) at 2004-09-07 19:46:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
aint no way I'm reading all that crap, so O because I didn't read it so I dont know if its good or bad
Submitted by fake_bargled (user info) at 2004-09-07 19:39:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Pretty soon you're going to start getting checks in the mail for being a simpleton.
Submitted by vengeance (user info) at 2004-08-13 22:42:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by FetishII (user info) at 2004-08-12 19:52:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-08-12 19:38:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
Hope this is what you wanted!
---
Mr. Spam man, bring some spam. My nane is electrictoothsyndrome, and I'm like the 20th to spam Fetish this month, ain't I cool?
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-08-12 19:45:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-08-12 19:38:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
Hope this is what you wanted!
---
Better make sure you spam them all, I'm not missing a one, bitch!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-07-22 00:46:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're really not gonna believe this, but I didn't really even read philosophy until I started to figure these things out on my own: AKA, I was real fucked up on acid...at death's door...several times...willingly. It only pisses me off to read other philosophers, because I already pretty much already know everything they are trying to say. I can't say that I am particularly fond of thinking in circles but it's the nature of the game. I have come to find that the closest thing to representing how I think is Taoism...and the physics of Einstein.
It is never enough though...there is always another, apparently better way to say the same goddamed thing, so I guess at least for now, people will keep buying books.
Submitted by ohlookasquirrel (user info) at 2004-07-22 00:38:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I usually don't read things people link me to, and I certainly don't read the entirety of most posts, but I figured I owed it to you, or to my insomnia. I must confess I skipped over the bit about inductive and deductive reasoning since that topic was explored thoroughly in several of my classes, but other than that, I did read the whole thing.
So, which philosophers have influenced your thought, other than Nietzche? Much of this sounds familiar but I can't quite place my finger on it.
"There was even one case in Tennessee where a teacher was fired for teaching the theory."
And lord, I had to do an entire research paper on the Scopes trial. He wasn't exactly fired for teaching the theory, it was far more complicated than that. But that pissed me off to no end, by the time I was done writing the paper I wanted to kick Bryan in the balls quite hard in memory of Darwin.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-06-22 17:39:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for effort, I'll read it when I'm not at work.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-05-25 23:33:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The answer is 42, but that's beside the point!
Submitted by Rixes (user info) at 2004-05-25 23:29:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So then how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Submitted by Socialist_Joe (user info) at 2004-05-25 23:14:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i thought the answer was 42
i dont think i read that post at all thought
maybe i did