Consiousness and existence

Question

My question is fairly straightforward would consiousness never exist if that "subject" was not subject to information from the external world via the "subjects" senses because of a "fault" in the method by which these senses transmit the information to there destination.

So iam asking does the manifestation of consiousness require the reciept of information from an external world in order to "create" that consiousness or would it still be "created" if the circumstances meant that it was subject to nothingness.

If the consiouss needs sensory input to create the individual that consious is, can they conclude that if you say " i think and therefore iam" meaning that that consious is real. From that and the necessesity of sensory input for that consious to exist don't you conclude the world that consious is subject to is also real?

Or is the statement "I think therefore I am" incorrect because it manifests from consious thoughts resulting from a language that consious uses in its thoughts, where a subject subject to nothingness has a consious but could not concieve of language and similarly could not experience the same thought.

Answer 1

The issue I have with this question is that perhaps the use of the word consciousness is imprecise in this case. What I think you're really asking about is awareness.

Let's conduct a quick thought experiment.

Take everything you know; every piece of knowledge that you possess, all the experiences, everything you've seen and heard, and put it on a hard drive for safe keeping. Is that drive conscious? Of course not. Is it aware? No. It's an inanimate storage device that contains data it doesn't understand and does not have the faculties or potential to do so, largely because it's static.

Conversely; take a new born baby and place it in a sensory deprivation chamber for 20 years. Feed it intravenously but restrict it from having ANY contact through senses with the outside world. Is the 20 year old conscious? Most certainly. Is it aware, or at least self aware? Highly unlikely. New born babies are conscious according to our definition, but they aren't aware. It's not until they are about 2 years old (generally speaking) that they exhibit behaviours that indicate that they have become aware of themselves as a separate entity from their carers.

From this, we can infer that awareness is more than just knowledge, but consciousness is more an 'always on' state of input and consolidation of the stimuli around us.

To be sure, not all knowledge will lead to awareness, and the structure of the knowledge we leave behind for the next generation is what has allowed humans to develop so quickly in this regard. If we had to learn everything from scratch for ourselves rather than being able to short cut the process by quickly absorbing the knowledge of others, we would not have the tools we need to build our awareness even today (in my opinion). That we can order and categorise our knowledge and apply a set of rules to it in order to build upon it is what has given us this ability.

So; perhaps we can say that consciousness is the engine of self awareness, and our knowledge and processing frameworks (like language, logic, maths etc.) are the fuel.

Answer 2

It's a fair question. However, you are stating the answer to the question. You're saying the same thing in different ways. You couldn't have Consciousness without senses nor vice versa. It's like trying to separate water from water.

Answer 3

I would have to say no. The way I see it, the purpose of consciousness is to resolve conflicting desires. Without input from reality, such conflict wouldn't arise.

Answer 4

Sometimes is not the word that matters but the meaning the word implies. There is a thin layer between concepts such us existence, consciousness and awareness. Would you ever exist if nobody were conscious of your existence or the actions of your existence in the whole history of the universe in the past of future? If so it's because you have taken a solipsistic approach. Your mind and the information in it would be the whole universe. If your mind were the whole universe would you identify yourself with every thought in it?

The quote from Descartes "I think therefore I am" from his Evil Demon it's not entirely accurate from an eastern philosophy point of view because he identified himself as a thinking entity at his core but how could he have known that his thoughts were not also created by the demon? How can you be sure at 100% that your thoughts are your thoughts and no created by another entity you are not aware of? Are you aware of your unconscious processes of your mind?

From my personal view I tend to accept the neuroscientific one, consciousness its just the capacity the mind has to perceive the passing of time which is different from creating mental sentences, ideas, memories etc. E.g. experienced meditators with no thoughts in their minds know that they are conscious and they exist here and now without having any thoughts.

Existence is metaphysical, and identifying yourself with your mind from a Buddhistic point of view it's just your ego (delusion of the mind) trying to separate himself from the rest of the universe when in fact we are all one.