Higher/Lower Existence

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Higher/Lower existence
It is possible, from a different point of view, that the true reality of which I speak is relative, and all existences are in their own true reality. In other words, the most fundamental existence (at the smallest level) is not necessarily the ‘true’ reality, but it can be seen as the first reality, from which all other forms originate. Humans are made of collections of ordered matter that organize in such a way as to create a higher consciousness that creates a new reality:

If the brain is where experience occurs, then it makes sense to believe that other systems, biological or not, would have consciousness, whether or not similar to that of humans. As I have said before, it is not matter itself, but the organization of matter that is the essence life. If all that is required is the order of matter, then a computer programmed to interact with the world (accept sensory data and react to it) the same way as humans do would have consciousness.

That is, unless there is some other quality or touch that is required other than the order of something’s physical makeup. Some would call this a spirit, soul, or life granted by a God. I like to entertain the idea that our physical makeup somehow allows our body to be controlled by higher consciousness. I do not refer to the former idea that the physical quality is the only one necessary for consciousness; I mean that the matter that comprises our body and brain are ordered in a way to empower the central control system, allowing it consciousness. Much the way that citizens of a population allow or give power to the government to decide how to control the mass’s lives, the subatomic molecules in our body allow our conscious states and therefore alternative control to their being (alternative to regular physics). This gains the whole of the physical makeup a single entity, in addition to the individual nature of each particle, atom, molecule, and so on.

I like to entertain this notion because it works from the bottom up, instead of the top down. Instead of believing that a God, some higher entity than us, deigned to give us the spark of lesser life and consciousness that is our existence, I believe it began as an initiative, a desire at the smallest level. From there it built up through the formation of varying and complex order. There must be some existence at the atomic level, possibly a consciousness, but not necessarily a comparable one to my existence. Evolution is the description of the creation of conscious organisms from single-celled ones. I believe that the molecules that first replicated themselves developed over time better ways to control their bodies, and the brain is a result of all those millions of steps we call evolution. The individual molecules developed so they could best regulate and control, and eventually replicate their complex bodies by living with a nervous system that takes in the world surrounding (senses) and a brain of some sort that analyzes and causes the body to react to the sensory information.

(This is a reason why we must treat life with the respect and honor it deserves. It is our purpose to rule and regulate our body, which both allows our existence and plays its own part in continuing the cycle of order and life. We owe the history of evolution (our ancestors) and the benevolent and ordered nature of our physical make up (as well as many other factors I will not get into) for allowing our consciousness to exist.)

With the order of existences among these small things comes a possibility for higher existence. We can also give things higher existence through language, naming, and defining of objects, beings, and abstract ideas: money, for instance, is made of physical matter but has powerful meaning to itself as well as to the person who owns it. This shows language’s power as a source of order, even over things with which we do not directly interact.

If the idea that one thing’s desires and realities can give way to higher existence is true, it makes sense that humans can create higher existences than their own. Relationships are one part of the formation of such entities. Like the connections between neurons in the brain and body that order to make our consciousness, relationships between people can create higher existences. There is unity in any relationship, or in any ordered physical matter. This unity defines an entity. The individual entities are not necessarily aware of this higher consciousness, if it is indeed a consciousness, nor of all the smaller/lower entities of which they are comprised. It is of the same proportion of molecule to organism with a brain that the entities may be separated, meaning that it would be very difficult for humans to develop the complex connections in society to create a higher entity as incredible as our own brains. However, if such a feat were possible, we may find that we exist more surely or efficiently – that we live on through time, growing and replicating while remaining in tandem with our environment – if we allow some higher entity to control our lives.

This higher existence could be in place at some levels already. The government passes laws that force us to do or not do certain things because of threat (or the perception of threat). We give the government power over us in order to make society run more efficiently and to better the lives of individuals in mass quantities. We give up many inherent living rights in the processes, but over all government is a good thing for the populations of humanity.

In conclusion, if these ideas are the way of things we may not be able to create a being that has life and consciousness like us (i.e. AI robots). However, each relationship we make can create another piece of a grander life – that of all the humans and animals, collectively progressing their lives. Such existence may even be a form of life, occupied by an entity similar to, but not necessarily the same as, our Selves.

2

your post in the psychology forum regarding awareness is something i find particularly relevant here

you seemed to have sensed deeper layers of human ‘awareness’, that it is often far more subtle and multifarious than we normally conceive of it

indeed, i find awareness above, behind, and at the bottom of all things

that which gives plausibility to freedom of will (to a limited degree)

an eternal That (thou art That) which experiences thought and feeling without being either one

for it is the very Ground of being and consciousness itself - the universe is matter and energy experiencing itself by means of information and interpretation

the nature of intelligence is far from beginning or ending with the human species - only our hubris would have us be so presumptuous

man is most alien to himself, yet supposes intelligence began with him - he does not see himself as the cosmic dance that he is, that between his divinity and his ego: he is Will that must overcome the latter in order to bear witness to the former, to make former and latter dance in grace and harmony (think animal grace applied further to human genius and creativity)

intelligence is a creative process of becoming, a process of matter and energy becoming aware of itself, and thus also information - evolution is this process overcoming itself

matter does not allow consciousness, rather it is very much the other way around, for ultimately the universe is a collective representation in which we collectively participate and experience from our own unique and finite perspective; ours amidst an infinite number other such finite perspectives of greater or lesser scope and scale, all of which amount to infinite and timeless perspective (Pure Awareness) which negate all polarities and distinctions into a primordial unity

human experience is a fractal of perspective, and everything we perceive, we create; and all creation (human or otherwise) begins as a thought

man himself began as a thought, indeed the universe began as a thought - a thought which gave birth to its own moment and thus gave birth to time itself, indeed matter and energy themselves and thereby all of creation/matter/energy/information (at bottom, these are all the same thing, the Ground of Awareness described in different ways)

matter and energy become information in an intelligent and ordering sense - all science turns matter and energy into information, so too do art and philosophy

intelligence is the organizing component of awareness and energy which man essentially is but does not himself see - man is blind to himself

thought gives birth to energy, and energy is harnessed by intelligence to become matter and creation; it organizes itself by means of order and information so to give birth to everything from suns and planets, to biological entities (life and finite experience of ‘the world’) and all of that which do and do not perceive - man’s ego experiences both itself and the rest of infinity through a pinhole

he does not know he participates as a creator in the total dance of creation

3

You’re not hinting at Communism, are you?

4

lower levels of reality certainly can create newer, “higher” realities. this process occurs because individual entities on the same level come together and create systems of meaning which simultaneously transcends each of their individual existences, thus giving birth to new levels of existence or meaning which are above their own. of course, this process of abstraction doesnt actually create anything objectively “real”, not in the same way that the individuals themselves are “real”. but the created general reality IS real at the subjective level of existence of the individuals themselves.

money is a perfect example. money has tremendous power and meaning (real meaning!) to us as humans, but to a higher lifeform, or to the earth or any other celestial body, money is just a piece of paper, nothing more. meaning is created via group interaction and agreement, but that meaning always remains on the same relative existential level as those who created it. it is only “higher” with respect to its simultaneous entailment in many individuals at the same time, something that an individual itself cannot do.

5

i think it’s both ways, and in the model you seem to describe (quite elegantly, i might addd) i think it would have to be both as well.

6

you’re right, in a sense it is both - from the narrow perspective of an individual body and ego, x exists regardless of whether or not I happen to be thinking or perceiving x

but as perspective grows wider and deeper, perception inevitably comes to the forefront, to the essence and bottom of things - as it must, i think

and admittedly, i initially laughed at berkeley during my history of modern class while becoming a fan of hume

i still greatly admire hume, but the crazy bishop’s idealism (leaving aside dogma and detail) wasn’t really that crazy after all

7

I don’t think you need to take it as far as Berkeley did - tho it’s certainly a worthwhile thought expiriment to do so.
Perception is immediate and it is of something - it is our connection to what-is, and what-is is, for us, as it is perceived - you can then dispel of the thing-in-itself without necessarily declaring perception as the creator of all this something - it’s rather the enabler - something is there and perception is part of that something, perception is something seeing itself - the question of consciousness before matter or matter before consciousness then gets subsumed in the question of finitude before infinity or infinity before finitude - perception is of the finite because consciousness is finite, at least insofar as we are aware in a workaday sense - is there a reason for this? Perhaps because a broader, infinite consciousness is looking at itself and the part that’s looking can’t see the part that sees, so consciousness divides and differentiates, everyone looking at the same something from different angles. No solipsism, and no Berkelian idealism, because what’s being looked at is what’s there - appearances then become a seperate issue …

8

you have an apparent perception… that’s all…

you want to make a leap of faith and claim that your apparent perceptions are what’s there but you have no grounds to make the claim, logical or otherwise…

the thing-in-itself remains elusive

-Imp

9

Well sure, any knowledge of anything requires that leap of faith. But, empirically, “what’s there” can be confirmed by other consciousnesses until it becomes a practical certainty. That’s tautological, sure, but thought of any sort requires such fundamental tautology, including the thought that nothing is really what it seems (because then you’re presuming that there IS, in fact, a particular way things are). The thing in itself isn’t elusive so much as it’s simply non-existent. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why we should presume that the universe is playing an elaborate trick on us by rendering all our shared perceptions illusory. It’s possible, but I don’t imagine it’s likely.

10

for the simple reason that there is no evidence otherwise…

-Imp

11

I take the reports of other consciousnesses to be evidence that it is otherwise. I take the lack of compelling evidence that it IS illusion to be evidence otherwise (that begs the question, but evidence often does). I take recognized patterns and shared symbolism to be evidence that it is otherwise. I take occam’s razor (it’s simpler to assume perception is of what’s there than to assume that perception is of what’s not there) to be an argument for the likelihood that it is otherwise. I take the simple practical benefit that we take from such fundamental workaday presumptions as “what is perceived is what’s there” to be evidence otherwise. It’s not conclusive evidence, but there is evidence, and one thing you cannot accuse me of is claims to absolute certainty. If you want to judge it to be non-evidence then i have to wonder what you base that judgment upon and whether it’s just as tautological and question-begging as you may feel inclined to accuse this evidence of being.

12

The thing-in-itself is a myth, like God and Hobbitses.

13

is hearing voices proof of other people or insanity?

-Imp

14

Are there other people around and are they speaking?

15

your perception is not guarantee of their existence?

-Imp

16

Depends wether or not anyone else hears them.

17

Certain knowledge is impossible. Our perceptions, however, are about as close as we can get, and certainly good enough to get around the world on.

18

so you base your existence on the opinion of others?

singular perceptions are singular perceptions, the world is something besides…

-Imp

19

I don’t really know what any of that means.

20

think about it

-Imp