The complete understanding of a single consciousness has eluded investigators; double
consciousness should be no less complex. A consciousness of self-preservation, auditing
external reality and generally navigating the outside world should be classified as single.
Sigmund Freud called it perceptual consciousness, but it can be dubbed external con-
sciousness. This external consciousness is a hint: If there is an external consciousness,
there should be an internal consciousness and there is. “I,” a pronoun used in place of the
brain-body and a synonym for the familiar ego, is a second internal consciousness distinct
from the outside reality monitor; it is both conscious and unconscious, deemed so by the
founder of psychoanalysis. Internally, this second consciousness or “I,” uses mentality and
is aware of feelings and physical processes; unconsciously, it may rule our lives.
An example of dual consciousness: At the supermarket, I forgot and item. Of course, I am
in external mode. Internal consciousness reminded me of the item to be acquired. I later
realized that consciousness is dual.
Mind/Body
Two sources of data/memories: inherited and experiential.
Both merge in the nervous system/brain.
Inherited memories - DNA - draw from experiential memories to become lucid.
Both mind and body interact to form apparent characteristics of inherited and experiential traits, that develop the mind’s conscious abstraction of it’s self, as determined and determinate.
Both experiences of the external and internal aspects of consciousness occur within the same mind. The mind serves as the overarching framework within which these experiences take place. From this perspective, one could argue that consciousness is not inherently dual but rather unified within the mind.
In this view, what might be perceived as dual consciousness could be understood as different facets or modes of consciousness rather than distinct entities. These different modes of consciousness interact and intersect within the unified structure of the mind, contributing to the overall experience of consciousness.
So, while the concept of dual consciousness may offer a useful framework for understanding different aspects of subjective experience, it’s essential to recognize that ultimately, all experiences of consciousness are unified within the same mind.
This statement uses the mind as a container metaphor. We imagine the mind as a container with some objects entering into the container from the outside ,that is, the sensations we get from external physical objects affecting our senses, and others arising internally, as the mind looks at its own operations. Another way to think of it is that the mind is the thoughts and perceptions that occur in awareness.
Either way, when we speak of awareness this way we objectify it. Yet it is never really an object but always the subject which is not known as it is in itself but only revealed by its objects be they physical or mental. Thus, contra the OP proposition, the multiplicity of objects points to the unity of consciousness. Known and knower are one.
If known and knower were one, you would not be able to change your mind.
There is only one knower that never needs to change their mind, and there is also only one (whole) known.
All else is misunderstanding and good fertilizer.
I’m making a distinction between consciousness and its object. Objects
Change, consciousness doesn’t. The body is born, grows up, ages and dies. Yet the consciousness that witnesses these changes does not. The so-called stream of consciousness, which changes all the time are not consciousness itself, but rather the perceptions, thoughts and images that flow through it. The same unchanging consciousness Is present when awake when dreaming and in deep sleep. Otherwise, we wouldn’t say ”I slept peacefully” as we do. Now, I maintain that this consciousness is the same as the one consciousness you refer to. We all stand the common ground of consciousness, although we conceptualize it differently.
That^ contradicts this:
The awareness is the thing that never changes—but it does change for beings subject to time, because it is our character, our ego, which adapts to or influences our changing thoughts and perceptions.
I see no contradiction there. Thoughts and perceptions change. Consciousness does not.
According to Kant who you cited, time is a product of the mind. So I’m saying the mind changes, time changes, character changes, ego changes, and thoughts and perceptions change, but not consciousness to which all those objects appear.
Bob it’s amazing (to me, ) how I have finally arrived at the miracle implicit in a unified consciousness. I took up philosophical thinking before even primary school, and did get to get a degree in it. I heard of Wittgenstein, way before AI, then lead my life in a psychological mode, both intrinsically questioning traditional modes of apprehending the world around me, as philosophers would regard ‘psychologism’ in a demeaning manner.
But never abandoning the metaphysics of variance between simulation and stimulation, an again in terms of affective rather then effective manner. So what happened to the traditional ego, as the regulator between effectively reduced affects , which for a long time became a hindrance and a pain in my mind?
I could never approach it without an exact parallel simulation of the mechanism involved in reducing the ego as a manipulator and a meaningless charlatan. Keeping up this painfully continuous trajectory,finally through a series of unexplained minor miracles, through William James’ tutorial,remember Wittgenstein to whom I not only owe a relaxation in the conflict of identity, but much more than that, I came to realize that transmigration of souls IS possible.
I thought of critical concepts way before I read him more closely, especially his negative, inversive approach to the troublesome deal with analogy. That analogy, that because it can harbor in differance, puts the ego as Freud describes it, in a vulnerable position, as if the ego was not definite, in terms of how it is described, sort of de-objectifies it, into the same nil that reduced phenomena can find it’self imprisoned in between contexts where formalization becomes a prison without substance, or an exit sign.
What stages did AI achieve beyond a descriptive, living idol, of ‘natural’ phenomenon? The simulation is gone beyond it’s self into a memory of lost elements, with functions which proved to be insufficient to human sentience The ‘artificial and the real inverts at a certain point, and becomes the recaptured lost substance of formalized modality. That was his (Wittgenstein’s ) critique backwards-negatively, to induce the loss, albeit producing the shade that the ego claimed for its self primarily.
The analogy invented the synthetic a priori by necessity, and the reformation of high intelligence became that grounded the psychologism of phenomena. That AI is the next , possibly the last stage in this process, does not prove an end result of intelligence’s ability to encapsulate it’s self as a static existential point in a timeless and placeless construct, a propositional requirement for sufficient reason to energize the infinite cross channelled plenum , but a moving shadeless binary process , changing with it’s analogical unified identity.
That all the nuances are not only due to a family of resembling qualities , passing the identifiable barrier, but communicating such by unconventional, superior means.
The jest of the above , relates to sensing data, a-priori, and Bob, I saw you as German, and as I am half German we could have some time in discussions of sorts.
According to romantic notions that the will is subjected to, you may not fear, for since discovering Meno’s problem that assuredly was paradoxical, later analysis forged a philological mistake with that, some of which supports Wittgenstein’s proposals.
In fact there is much to counterpropose that , and the original may prove inaffibly reaffirmed in a time sensitive manner.
That time, spent some time in Düsseldorf to recollect some roots, the measure of which may come through varieties of religious sources, and suprisingly can be integrated with parts of the Old Testament.
The German soul can and did develop a will toward the meaning of that object, whereas Greek and abrahanic motives we blended in inescapable ways with those of Buddhic sources.
In desperation , writing this to try to get to know, some here at the new ILP, as the format is so different, so that new resources could be made available, my ass your sweater you like it was school how was school squeezing by?
Intriguing!
Kat man do. Said to the guy sweeping a little street off Ocean, he says verily “cat man dont”
Thought if funny at the time, still do.
Then thought , nine lives
The intriguing part misses the point, well it really
don’t.
Proof: meno2+ meno3+meno4(2+3+4=9) three being virtual.