Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[Rade]

What is it about the Primacy of Existence axiom that rules out the possibility that consciousness is the something that first exists?

The Primacy of Existence is the fundamental axiom of philosophy (but of course even this is open to argument). It is the term "existence" that rules out "consciousness" as being primary. Consciousness is a single existent, Existence is ALL that exists, and the Primacy of Existence means that "all that exists" takes primacy over any single existent such as consciousness. Now, if one holds that existence has no begin or end, it is illogical to say that consciousness is first. Finally, to be "aware" means you must have an answer to the question, aware of what ? e.g., a "what" that exists must logically take primacy to the process (=consciousness) of being aware of "what". There is a philosophic discussion on the Primacy of Existence in the book by philosopher David Kelly, 1986, "The Evidence of the Senses".

 

[Paul Martin]

The Primacy of Existence is the fundamental axiom of philosophy (but of course even this is open to argument). It is the term "existence" that rules out "consciousness" as being primary. Consciousness is a single existent, Existence is ALL that exists, and the Primacy of Existence means that "all that exists" takes primacy over any single existent such as consciousness. Now, if one holds that existence has no begin or end, it is illogical to say that consciousness is first. Finally, to be "aware" means you must have an answer to the question, aware of what ? e.g., a "what" that exists must logically take primacy to the process (=consciousness) of being aware of "what". There is a philosophic discussion on the Primacy of Existence in the book by philosopher David Kelly, 1986, "The Evidence of the Senses".

Your argument doesn't convince me. Maybe I should read Kelly's book. Do you recommend it?

It seems that your argument depends on the definitions of several new (to this discussion) words. What do you mean by 'primary'? Do you mean temporally first? Or do you mean ontologically fundamental? In my view, the temporality of existence is separate and distinct from the temporality of our ordinary experience, so to me, the key question is what is ontologically fundamental. What is the basic constituent of which everything else is composed? And how does the term 'existence' rule out consciousness being primary? Just by virtue of its definition? What is that definition? And what do you mean by 'aware'? I think it might be possible to be aware of nothing. It seems to me a more pressing question would be Who or what is aware? It seems to me that in order to have awareness, there must be something that is aware. I think consciousness could be that something, depending on the definitions you accept for the terms.

Anyway, I would still like to hear your comments on my analysis of candidates for the ontologically fundamental essence of reality. Why is not 'the ability to know' the best candidate?

Paul

Oops! I wrote the above reply after reading only your last post. I didn't know you posted an earlier one relating to my candidate list. I'll study that now and reply to it later.

 

[Paul Martin]

First, I see no logical reason to consider that there must be a "first" thing to exist--why so ?-- perhaps "existence" has no beginning, no end--it always was, always will be (our "universe" may come and go, but existence remains).

I agree. "First" was a lazy way of describing what I really meant. I really meant the ontologically fundamental essence. If I can use the term 'primary' to mean that, then I will. If not, I need some other term.

Next, if PC is "first"--what exactly is it to be "aware of" as you say -- aware of what ? -- there is nothing present -- thus it is completely illogical that PC can be first.

As I said in my other reply, I see no reason why awareness can't be aware of nothing. After all, I thought we both agreed that if there were a PC, it would be extemely simple and rudimentary.

If being aware is anything, it is inherently relational--e.g. to say that one is aware (or conscious) is to say that there must be an other that is the object of the action, that is, PC must be ultimately aware of something other than itself for it to have any logical meaning.

I don't think so. I think you were the one to introduce the term 'awareness' and I took it to mean 'the ability to know'. The ability might exist in the absence of anything known.

And, I finish with a quote from Aquinas, which for me summarizes nicely why your concept of PC as "first" just does not hold:

"Thought does not need to be related to things, it is the relation" T. Aquinas

Here you are introducing yet more terms. What do you mean by 'thought', 'related', and 'relation'. I'm not ready to accept statements from Thomas Aquinas just because he is old.

Now, if we follow the thinking of Aquinas, I do see that you have a point

Hmmm. Well in that case, maybe Tom is OK after all.

... in that it is very likely that PC, while logically not the first existent, can be held to be the "first action" by which existents "become aware" of each other as you suggest--in other words, your PC concept fits well as an example of that which first allowed for entanglement of real existents--a concept of fundamental importance to quantum mechanics (e.g., entanglement). For example, suppose that the first objects to exist emerged (that is, we reject that existence has no begin-end) as "two" opposites formed at exactly the same time and place, a perfect symmetry, say positive charge things (+) and negative charged things (-). Or, if you wish, have one (+) in fact be first, the other (-) second--it does not matter. Next, let these two things then "become aware" of each other--e.g., they attract due to fundamental laws of physics to form a neutral union [(+) ~ (-)], where ~ represents the electromagnetic force that binds. So, Paul, I would suggest that the ~ may very well be the concept of the "primary consciousness" that you seek--that is, the "first" form of awareness between the "first" forms of existence may well be a type of electromagnetic force (which we now know also includes the "weak force" of nuclear physics). Now, here we find the concept of the "primacy of existence" of Aristotle. But let us move forward from there and suggest that the "primacy of existence" must form a neutral monism with the "primacy of consciousness" (your PC) in order for existence to evolve (e.g., without PC what we call existence would have stopped at the point in time of free (+) and (-) having no meaning--no union--no evolution).

I'll have to think about this when I'm less tired.

Now, it is also interesting to consider that the "ability to know" (your term) or potentiality for (+) and (-) to form union via PC must already be present within (+) and (-) as a type of hidden potentiality out of which PC emerges.

I think this is a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the potentiality or the (+) and (-) things? It seems most logical to me to suppose the potentiality came first (here we go again) or was primary because potentiality could account for the (+/-) whereas the reverse means that somehow we get the (+/-) without potentiality and it then acquires it.

Thus, I would suggest that PC can be defined as the fundamental "emergent property" of all that exists

To me it makes more sense to say that PC can be defined as the fundamental essence from which everything else emerged. That way, everything is accounted for.

--e.g., existence and consciousness (=awareness) cannot be separated, in the same way that the heads cannot be separated from the tails of a coin and we still conceive that the coin evolve as such.

That would also be true if everything emerged from consciousness.

This is my best attempt to consider your PC idea within the bounds of logical and science--but I cannot support any attempt at Kantian idealism which would conclude that PC takes primacy over existence, nor that "being aware" takes primacy over the question: aware of what ? For not even Descarte claimed that he was aware of the action process of awareness itself, in other words, a PC can never be aware of itself as being PC, it can only be aware of itself as an object of its awareness.

I certainly appreciate your attempts and I thank you for them. I don't know enough about Kantian idealism to know whether I support it or not. As for PC being aware of PC, I think the answer must be "not completely". I think PC holds some mystery even for PC.

Thanks again. I'm going to bed.

Paul