*now that i wasted half an hour writing this bullshit, i only post it as a long, meandering joke without a punchline.. *
ah, my favourite mystery to ponder...consciousness yet also my least favourite subject to discuss with others, as language inevitably frustrates any true understanding.
i find it helps with such subjects to define certain terms, and the way in which one will be using them. please note every meaning, not just the ones in bold.
consciousness
~an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness"
~ awareness: having knowledge (of); "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
cognition
perception ~
percept: the representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept
~ a way of conceiving something; "Luther had a new perception of the Bible"
~the process of perceiving
~knowledge gained by perceiving; "a man admired for the depth of his perception"
~sensing: becoming aware of something via the senses
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
you will notice certain portions are in bold. these signify the more specific ways in which i will use the concepts.
inevitably when pondering consciousness i wonder if there are limits to consciousness (defined as "awareness, having knowing of).
if there are no limits, then it is pointless to speak of such a concept.
if there are limits, then they should be definite.
the concept of "red" is defined by its (arbitrarily determined) limits within the electromagnetic spectrum. *without limits, one cannot pinpoint an object, or concept, or idea.*
these limits exist because "red" is simply a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum...it exists in relation to something other than itself. if "red" was the totality of the electromagnetic spectrum, and not a part, it would essentially be a meaningless concept.
let us assume for the moment that reality consists entirely of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the relationships within it. if red is a part of this spectrum, it is a meaningful, definable term. if red is the totality of the spectrum, it essentially loses the possibility of being a meaningful, definable term. in this latter case, "red" and "electromagnetic spectrum" would be the same thing.
in the same sense, if consciousness is inherent in the totality o f All That Is, it loses the possibility of being defined as a meaningful concept. whereas if it is only inherent in parts of All That Is (if it has definite limits analogous to red's frequency limits within the E-M spectrum) it can be defined as a meaningful, definable concept.
-----
now consider the most common usage of meaning attached to consciousness: an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "
this usage makes a distinction between self and situation (not-self) by means of cognition. cognition is the ability by which individuals "think, perceive, and remember".
cognition in this sense has meaning due to the acceptance of linear time (thinking and remembering are contingent upon the nature of time).
now, does a rock have cognition? does it have the capacity to think, learn, remember. to contemplate "itself" in relation to "not-self"? i doubt it.
* i realize this is probably getting murky, but please bear with me, and i'll tie things together very soon*
now, let us bring in:
awareness
~having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
~ state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
you will remember that all this babbling is trying to determine whether or not consciousness has limits, or not.
upon consideration, we can see that in one sense of the word, awareness is synonomous with unlimited consciousness (the bold portion in the above definition).
undifferentiated
if some thing has no limited or specialized function, it cannot have [quote] consciousness
~an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness
" , for it has no self.
------------
If this is true, would it not be feasible that the blades of grass and the trees which grow, function, operate, feed, thrive, are actually sentient beings with no way of communicating their sentience?
i do not believe that leaves of grass have cognition (think or remember).
but i do believe they have sentience in the first of the following ways:
sentience
awareness: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness" sense: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing"
the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
notice that "sentience" is synonomous with "awareness", which is synonomous with "consciousness".
if you remember my thoughts on definite (defining) limits being neccessary for a concept to have meaning, you will see that this sort of consciousness ("awareness: having knowledge of") is essentially meaningless, and undefinable. it is the realm of infinite, unlimited possibility, in which the following dualisms have simulaneous be-ing (non-be-ing).
self-other
time-eternity
finite-infinite
life-death
limitedness-unlimitedness
meaning-meaninglessness
etc.
you asked if, say, plants have sentience which they are merely unable to communicate.
i believe they possess the type of sentience which cannot be communicated, and thus need not be. they possess unlimited awareness. they have no imaginary partitions between red and infrared, or the sun which is touching their leaves from millions of miles away, and the leaves that are being touched.
communication implies self and other.
i believe every "thing" has awareness.. "having knowledge of" no thing AND every thing, because things are arbitrarily defined.
every "thing" but the human mind knows that it does not matter what it knows.
i believe humans more than any other organism, has perception in the sense of:
a way of conceiving something; "Luther had a new perception of the Bible"
whereas everything aside from our mode of self-consciousness IS perception in the sense of:
percept: the representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept
man, this is starting to become absurd...yet again the labyrinth of language has swallowed all clairity into its black hole of meaning.
it is highly significant that the main reason (most) humans feel themselves to be superior to animals, and plants, and rocks, and dark matter, is that we have the specific, limiting/limited mode of consciousness which can only be housed in language.
we think we are the supreme goal that God/Life/Evolution has been working towards.
meaning
~the message that is intended or expressed or signified; "what is the meaning of this sentence"; "the significance of a red traffic light"; "the signification of Chinese characters"; "the import of his announcement was ambiguous"
~the idea that is intended; "What is the meaning of this proverb?"
~meaning(a): rich in significance or implication; "a meaning look"; "pregnant with meaning"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
i think perhaps we just fail to realize that All That Is has no purpose. it is an undifferentiated cosmic stem cell which is pregnant with all possibilities. the One Moment in which eternity simultaneously grows and rests. and we are just one possibility in that teeming Void.
the limits inherent in the consciousness of our intellectual-verbal minds are the very same limits which define us. we ARE our arbitrary limits, and they do not even exist except arbitrarily.
In mathematics, the concept of a "limit" is used to describe the behavior of a function, as its argument gets "close" to either some point, or infinity; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(math)
human identity is a function which has no purpose other than to define its own function.
in this sense, we are the only "things" which have self-consciousness, in that we are the only "things" which believe in separate "things".
every thing else simply is, in perfect relation to infinite relation...humans choose to believe that choice is possible ( ), and that we are somehow imperfectly related to every "thing" else.
awareness/consciousness is unlimited
it has "no limited or specialized function or structure, as in stem cells".
human consciousness fails to realize that its specialization is impossible without non-specialization.
all possibilities simply are, simultaneously, within the Primordial Stem Cell which contains all the genetic material for all growth, and death, and beginnings, and endings that Are.
"i" am a mystic because there is nothing but mysticism.
"i" am a gnostic because there is nothing but gnosis.
no "self" has ever lived.
i need to shut the fuck up and go meditate..although IT doesn't MATTER whether or not i do anyways
The Tao is abstract,
and therefore has no form,
it is neither bright in rising,
nor dark in sinking,
cannot be grasped, and makes no sound.
Without form or image, without existence,
the form of the formless, is beyond defining,
cannot be described,
and is beyond our understanding.
It cannot be called by any name.
Standing before it, it has no beginning;
even when followed, it has no end.
In the now, it exists; to the present apply it,
follow it well, and reach its beginning.
...........
|
|
Bookmarks