Consciousness exists. Always has, always will. Consciousness has perceptions and causes perceptions in other relative consciousnesses, us.
Consciousness is a body of energy housing a body of thoughts.
Yazada wrote
What a compliment! I aim to finish Parmenides work.
Aristotle or Kant are worth more than all the pre-Socratics put together. People suck the dick of pre-Socratics because they are 9/10 also Nietzsche followers(and where they got their opinion on pre-Socratics from) and Nietzsche fanboys and fangirls love sucking dicks in general but they fail to realise how basic and crude these philosophies are. I mean…Ancient Greeks have their place and it is a birthplace of something important…but only idiots and weaklings seek some mysterious origins there. And philosophy is not everything.
For our sakes as humans, we need to distinguish:
-our perceptions
-dimensions of consciousness
-unsubstantiated ideas and substantiated ideas
to be able to evaluate and identify differences between
our thoughts and our perceptions
the absolute consciousness thoughts and perceptions
which means creating new words to define each aspect and their interconnectivity.
I believe humans are the most relatively conscious creations actualized.
I wouldn’t know. I have never needed to study any of them to think like them. I’ve read a few passages of Plato and that’s about it. Not studying the thoughts of others allows more room for my own thoughts. Now I’m aiming to cover some new territory. Let me know if my proposals are new please.
An existential-philosophical (Heideggerian) statement follows:
Existence means “being held in the world”. Those who are held in the world are those who know that they are in the world. Only human beings, more precisely: only those human beings who know that they are in the world are in the world, do exist. Existence is “being-in-the-world”.
Please clarify your understanding of the word know? 
What I think the Greek philosophers got right was using simple observations to guide their assertions. Brilliance found in the simplicity of what we covet, what we experience. Now it seems the wheels of philosophical progress endlessly spin in place, our imaginations running wild in order to avoid simple truth.
What is being in terms of thought?
Since science has floated the idea of a non-conscious creation for so long, stopping any actual progress in philosophy, the chaos vs order and the complexity theories need to be reasoned out of existence ASAP.
Does anyone who believes in either of these theories wish to make any claims about them?
Then do your useful philosophizing elsewhere. Toodles.
Heidegger was not really an existentialist but a Christian mystic and apologist and a phenomenologist. Take away the part of his writing which has to do with Christian mysticisms and trying to justify religiosity and Christian religiosity in Europe and you have little to no existentialism left. Heidegger and the likes of his are one wing of the Christian apologists, the other is naturalists who admit that religiosity is an evolutionary feature of humankind and hence is both permanent and dignified in this aspect.
Heidegger was an atheist…not even worth replying to this dullard. Plus, Heidegger was a quack for pretentious idiots who like to wet themselves explaining the depths and complexities of being in being and throwness, vomiting out incoherent word salads and his thinking blew where the balance of powers blew…if the Nazis had won the war, his post-war philosophy would be completely different because he adapted it to the post-war intellectual climate, just as he adapted his early work to the then current nationalist climate of the German superiority. Why do you idiots think he was super popular both in Hitlers Germany and in the LGBT, post-modern intellectual circles of Paris after the war???..because he was a quack charlatan which blew where the wind blew and held zero weight himself… Nobody to take seriously and I still challenge any Heidegger dullard fan to summerise the meaning of being in being in few sentences without using the word being and existing more than once.
You see all these educated dullards claiming Heideggers philosophy to be extremely difficult and complex and simply repeating after eachother…this is the effect of human submissive authority…if their professors talk about Heidegger, if his name is popular then how could this pretentious and convoluted dribble be nonsensical…it must be deep,it must mean something I am yet to raise to the level of…Aristotle, Leibniz, Einstein…men of extraordinary genius and accomplishment both in theory and in practice and yet the academic circles do not have 1/10 of the trouble in understanding their work when compared to the trouble of understanding Heidegger’s work…everybody can read and understand what they are saying, yet with Heidegger, rites of passage and 100s of years are necessary…give me a break you naive dolts. humans ARE FULL OF SHIT…when you hear somebody talking positively about themselves…take that, divide it by 10 then take a half of that and be skeptical about what you are left with…humans lie like mad, and if you encounter a real bullshitter there are not depths of delusion and lies he will not sink to…he will most likely also fully believe his own lies and will build his whole life around his lies and pretences…take it easy kids.
aniceguy,
I think that you can also say all of the above about the tree - not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But then again, perhaps a tree is not really those things but rather just gives information about the tree. Anyone who truly loves trees can understand that what a tree is at its own “core” can only be known by one’s own core and perhaps not so much known as felt.
I get what you mean about “things” - the word hardly describes anything and a tree is a lovely form as is a leaf.
No man is an island, entire of itself…
I might think of myself as a leaf…a part of a beautiful whole of nature, in nature, which is the tree. Humanity is the tree and we are all leafs.
So you can say that a leaf or a tree might be the muse which upon being observed becomes a poem.
It is also an I and Thou relationship. It’s an object - excuse me - a form upon which to gaze and to contemplate life or absolutely nothing. It’s a shady protector from the Sun. It is capable of showing us the beauty of fractals. It is that which at one time held such energy and potential and promise within it’s pre-formation - still does. It is also such a beautiful form to hug. It is a presence which speaks without words but one needs to listen.
I wonder what a tree actually looks like with all of those atoms spinning around if we could see into it, through it.
[b]
Some nice bite sized bullet points for you to consider Wendy :
Consciousness is a sub set of Existence - Consciousness does not have to exist but Existence most certainly does
Existence has always existed because non Existence cannot exist at all - that would violate the Law Of Non Contradiction
Chaos and order are human labels based upon observed phenomena - the labels are arbitrary but the phenomena is real
So there is chaos and order in the Universe simply because that is how we define it but that is not necessarily how it is
We could just as easily say the Universe is all chaos or all order or neither of these things
We could even define chaos and order as being the same thing as definitions are descriptive not prescriptive
We however like to put things into boxes so one box is called Chaos and one box is called Order but the Universe is not a couple of boxes
The Universe just is - the only things we can say with certainty about it is that it exists - that it is eternal - that it is in a constant state of change
Everything is also connected to everything else - which is why chaos and order if they do exist are connected to each other too[/b]
The glue.
Most enjoyable. Thank you.
I have made some progress towards identifying a couple important aspects defining existence in terms of semi-consciousness, in regards to biological animals such as ourselves.
The dimensions of consciousness especially in terms of the juxtaposition of our brand of semi-consciousness to an absolute consciousness is messy. May need to invent words and their definitions.
If we observe our limits(natural laws), it’s reasonable to assume that the umbrella consciousness of existence has limits as well.
Really?
Your links never lead to anything helpful. Pass.