Yeah but on the other hand you new age hippies like to stretch anything any one said to mean anything.
Well, if there is a protoconsciousness, which then is not consciousness, then consciousness cannot be all encompassing, because there would be something it does not encompass.
PZR, do you realize you’re actually arguing for the necessity of an infinite regress?
I think you are too set aback by the awesomeness of my points to dare address any of them directly, instead making nonsensical oblique quips.
Or maybe you’re the one doing that?
I am directly addressing every point with awesome might and stunning clarity.
You lacks the intellectual girth.
On the contrary, Penrose’s proto-consciousness field theory proposes that consciousness is a part of all existence. It leaves open the possibility that present moment consciousness through observation impacts continuously and throughout all of time any part or all of an overall universal consciousness.
Well, that’s a reference to an allegation, meanwhile it stands as a logical absurdity to claim that a thing that is not a thing is that thing.
True. Protoconsciousness as a concept is questionable. Consciousness itself resists conceptualization.
It’s traditionally compared with light without which nothing can be seen. Without consciousness there is nothing.
I can imagine a world without people. But, I can’t imagine a world without consciousness.
I can posit oblivion, but I can’t imagine it. Total blackness is not oblivion. To imagine it is to be present in it.
Whatever image I bring to mind appears in consciousness. The body and all thoughts appear in it.
But, you’re right, consciousness is not really an “it” just like being itself is not a being. The being of all beings is not a being. Consciousness is like that.
Well, glad to hear you step back from the absurd position of denying that if there is a protoconsciousness, consciousness is not all encompassing.
Just because our understanding is limited doesn’t mean there isn’t the sort of understanding that is not limited…as ours is… but only … to all Being.
It’s not my concept. Protoconsciousness could just be a mode of consciousness. When Freud and Jung talked about the unconscious or preconsciousness they meant it in a relative sense. Like the comparison of unreflective consciousness to meta-consciousness. Most nonhuman animals seem to have the former, but not the latter. So they are relatively unconscious. But humans are not always metaconscious either even in the waking state. Alfred North Whitehead thought even atoms have a primitive form of conscious feeling. That seems to be something like what the protoconscious theory proposes. It’s new to me. I don’t know. Anyway, they’re speculating.
I still haven’t read Leibniz regarding monads & am not prepared to discuss. Not that it is related. Not that it isn’t.
Forgive me if I randomly blurt out tessellating fractal for no reason.
Concepts don’t have owners, like pets. Truth is not owned.
If you pretend that words mean whatever. If you accept that they mean specific things, and proto means not, then of course this is an absurd statement.
Allow me to clarify.
“Protoconsciousness is a primitive form of information operability, or perception and decision making. It’s a primordial state of brain organization that’s a building block for consciousness.”
I disagree. Consciousness is not a product of the brain.
There you go. A definitive statement. Don’t you feel better now?
Agreed. If protoconsciousness exists, consciousness is not all encompassing.
At least, according to that definition.
“Penrose’s theory proposes that each gravity-induced collapse causes a little blip of proto-consciousness. These micro-events get organized by biological structures called microtubules inside our brains into full-bodied awareness.”
Okay, your categorical statement applies there as well.
I agree with you.
Concepts are grasping. Truth is what is grasped. The grasping is the undeniable truth… even if you don’t have a very firm grasp, and it is more of a groping in the dark (for a flashlight, of course… not drifting off further into a groundless abyss… ).
There is no “that definition.”
Words have meanings.
Do you look for a book called “the theory of taking a shit” before you pull the bag labelled “toilet paper” from the supermarket shelf?
Don’t be a smartass.