Yeah. Not an it. A they. In them we live (heart/soul/id/appetitive), move (strength/will/superego/spirited), and have our being (mind/ego/logical)… in their image.
(Not the They Ec meant above…who some of the silly people say manifest the universe before they even exist in the time”line” of the universe.)
And some words have multiple meanings.
It seems protoconsciousness is one such word.
Protoconsciousness theory posits “A primordial state of brain organization that is a building block for consciousness” (Hobson 2009).
Whereas according to Penrose, proto-consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that exists independently of the brain.
And this is why Philosophy can’t have nice things.
I don’t see it that way.
Neither did Paul when he quoted Epimenides …
Are we sure that Epimenides was a pantheist? Maybe he just used the language available to him and maybe his interpreters just used the interpretations available to them? Also, are we barred from using the language of the poets in our own vernacular without knowing or sharing their actual intended meaning? We could never utter a word. Like Logos.
Speaking of which. The game of charades. The ridiculousness of all the guesses that get it wrong.
We could never play.
Or hunt like a bunch of velociraptors.
With as bad as Plato is understood, I have zero doubt many other philosophers could use reinterpretation.
Whatever protoconsciousness indicates, it indicates something that is proto conscious.
Camman man.
After I checked the two definitions,I agreed with you, so I don’t know what you’re after.
The proto-consciousness proposition is looking for the cause of consciousness in some physical mechanism whereas I see it as being fundamental.
How do you see it as fundamental but you don’t see it the way I see it here?
I’m after honesty, felix. I’m after that if some dude had written a book saying “protoconscicousness is conscious,” you would not call that an alternate definition.
I have no qualms or quarrels with this. I think it doesn’t nhold, philosophically, but that would have to be borne out rhetorically and, meanwhile, it is coherent and sound.
Those appear to be complex contraptions as Iambiguous would say. To me consciousness is absolute simplicity.
If my words are less than transparent to you I trust you will let me know.
Then it is up to you to test it.
Personally, I find it utterly astounding that the substance of the universe is not some particle of matter out there or some God up there but the very consciousness that we fundamentally are and can know ourselves to be.
Dishonesty can be just as transparent as honesty. As per honesty, I trust you will agree that I have.
You mean you find the idea astounding.
As a mere idea it would simply be preposterous. But, if you receive it, contemplate it and meditate on it, it will become self-validating. What we are fundamentally is consciousness. All mental and physical phenomena—the relative universe of experiences—are contingent upon that fact.
If we’re going to talk about consciousness…
Does it ever strike you as odd that we all have meta discussions?
I’m a perfect example.
But I’ll give you examples besides me.
Eddie Murphy giving one of the worlds best stand up acts at 22 years old.
George Carlin giving one of the most profound comedy acts in his 80’s.
This shit shouldn’t exist.
But it does. It defies all logic.
There’s something greater out there and we simply call it genius to dismiss it,
A million prophets like you exist a dime apiece.
It is an idea, dear Hamas supporter, and no manner of fervor will elevate it to revelation.
At least Gib had the decency, the chivalry and manliness, to write it out and argument it.
What of you?
Hah.
Pezer.
I’m going to explain this extremely simple to you with your rudimentary brain.
All of you are so stupid, I’m trying to get away from all of you. Forever.
Kill yourself then, and leave us alone about it.
Suicide is not possible in the cosmos. You can’t die in a dream. You have to interpret the dream instead. Then it stops being recurring