It's the "chicken or the egg" all over again.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The proposition that existence precedes essence seems logic enough. Descartes would be wrong; first one exists to assign a meaning to his life. One cannot think before existing because Thought only is within the realms of existence.
Yet, existence preceding essence seems faulty.
It conflicts with the nature of consciousness.
As Descartes believed, we can doubt everything, even existence, but we cannot doubt the consciousness that doubts this.

"I searched every room in my mind, looking for something that can genuinely exist without any possibility of it being unreal, immaterial, imaginary.
I found nothing.
Then a voice told me 'Funny. Who's making the search then?'"

If existence doesn't precede everything, then what is the magnitude of those abstracts that precede existence?

[Clockwork]

Descartes would only be wrong if, to think, one needed physical means (a brain.) However, I could be nothing but a consciousness floating through a void, the world around me imagined. If that's the case, physical matter isn't even a part of the equation.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Would that apply to a net-creature? like a conscious, AI type thing that randomly was "born" in the Internet? (sorry, I'm thinking of an Orson Scott Card book right now...)

[sing] And René Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am! [/singing]

[BlackButterfly]

Awesome. Based on that theory, I am God!

It's lonely, though...

[Clockwork]

Hey, God, the world sucks. It'sallyourfaultIhateyourargh!!!

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

Would that apply to a net-creature? like a conscious, AI type thing that randomly was "born" in the Internet?

That kind of entity would need the Internet, which needs servers, computers - matter. Unless of course that computer was imagined... a consciousness inside a consciousness?

Hm. Maybe it could be torus-like in configuration, sort of folded inside itself. That way no one thing came first, but it all just repeats endlessly.

[Delicate_Torture]

The chicken and the egg are having sex. When he finishes, the chicken rolls over, lights a cigarette, looks over at the egg and says "So... was it good for you?" THe egg looks over at the chicken and she says...

"Well... at least now we know that the chicken did come first."

[HumanePain]

The egg was first. Proof:

1) Before there were chickens, there were dinosaurs.
2) Dinosaurs laid eggs.
3) So the result of the preceeding is the egg came before the chicken.


So applying similar logic (in the "downstairs" of Jillian's architecture of existence),

1) Before there were humans, there was the big bang.
2) After the big bang, there was a brief period where matter existed before the Solar System came into existence.
3) As a result of the above, there was matter in existence befroe there were humans.
4) Therefore there was existence before there was consciousness.

I know this is a little heavy on the scientific side rather than pure logic (and philosophy), but I hope it helps the thread.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

The egg was first. Proof:

1) Before there were chickens, there were dinosaurs.
2) Dinosaurs laid eggs.
3) So the result of the preceeding is the egg came before the chicken.

I think I found a fault in your logic, hun. See, the "chicken or the egg" argument is about chicken eggs. It's the age-old conundrum. If you like, you can apply it to dinosaurs. Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? The egg has to be created by a dinosaur... But the dinosaur that created it has to come out of an egg, right?

So sure, the concept of an egg came first... But that doesn't answer the question. Which came first-- the being, or its egg?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Obvious, perhaps, to you. Care to elaborate for those of us who don't share your brilliant sense of logic?

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Why are we quibbling over evolution? It's obvious that the avian creature came first.

Unless you're a creationist... in which case the answer would be that God made the chicken and then the chicken laid the egg.

The real question hiding behind this is Science vs Religion.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Why are we quibbling over evolution? It's obvious that the avian creature came first.

Actually, if you're an evolutionist, you would root for the egg.
The egg had the embryo of the first chicken, but came from progenitors that were not quite chickens.
Now, back to "reality supersedes consciousness" or "consciousness supersedes reality"

[BlackButterfly]

The argument that consciousness superseded reality seems more viable to me, because there really doesn't seem to be a way to validate the existence of the other consciousnesses with which the observant consciousness is interacting.

...but then again, if it is true that reality is but a product of the observant consciousness, then why doesn't it seem to have total control over the environment it has created?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by BlackButterfly

why doesn't it seem to have total control over the environment it has created?

Why don't you have conscious control over your dreams?

[maggot]

At first, I thought you were claiming BB was out of her skull. xD


Matter was before consciousness.

Our "conscious" is emulated through the interaction of matter [electrical impulses in out brain] ergo matter came first.


I am a genius. :P

[BlackButterfly]

Hmmm... good point. But for me, dreaming is different. I can "pull out" (when I realize I'm dreaming) and observe my dreams and interact a bit, and decide whether to continue observing or wake up. Hmmm... I never connected the two before this.

[maggot]

BB, I'm tempted to call you WB[WhiteButterfly] now. :P

[BlackButterfly]

Originally Posted by maggot

BB, I'm tempted to call you WB[WhiteButterfly] now. :P

Call me what you will, just don't call me before noon on a Saturday.

(ba-dum CHING!! )

Hoo boy, that was ancient!

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by BlackButterfly

Hmmm... good point. But for me, dreaming is different. I can "pull out" (when I realize I'm dreaming) and observe my dreams and interact a bit, and decide whether to continue observing or wake up. Hmmm... I never connected the two before this.

Can't you detach yourself from your waking reality, too? You know, where you pull your emotions back and just analyze, logically, and realize that everything is completely subjective. I mean, obviously you can't decide whether to continue or to wake up, but it's a similar concept.

The way I always think of it is this: There are people that we call crazy that see reality as something COMPLETELY different. They see it in ways we almost can't even understand. And they believe in their reality just as strongly as we believe in ours, right? The main difference, to my way of thinking, is that we know that the majority of people don't see reality their way. That, however, implies that individual reality is in perception, right? And since we can't know anyone's mind but our own, we can only perceive that the majority of people don't see reality their way.

Basically, my belief is that reality, as a universally defined concept, doesn't exist.

[BlackButterfly]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

Basically, my belief is that reality, as a universally defined concept, doesn't exist.

So the "your ___ is not my ___" thing, huh? Interesting.

So do you think that society forces individual consciousnesses to look at things in a predefined way (explaining why so many people see things similarly)?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

I'm not sure I'd blame it specifically on "society", that sounds so anti-establishment. I definitely feel like it's largely due to nurture, though. That is, IF you believe that so many people see things similarly. One could possibly argue that you have no idea how other people see things, or if other people even exist.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

1) Before there were humans, there was the big bang.
2) After the big bang, there was a brief period where matter existed before the Solar System came into existence.
3) As a result of the above, there was matter in existence befroe there were humans.
4) Therefore there was existence before there was consciousness.

I disagree. There may have been consciounsness (god-like or otherwise)before humans, or even before the big bang

[BlackButterfly]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

I'm not sure I'd blame it specifically on "society", that sounds so anti-establishment. I definitely feel like it's largely due to nurture, though. That is, IF you believe that so many people see things similarly. One could possibly argue that you have no idea how other people see things, or if other people even exist.

I think I meant "nurture" instead of "society". I knew the word seemed inappropriate, but it's hard to think straight with the old boyfriend screaming at a football game behind me...

That's the problem I keep running into: how do we prove the other people even exist? The "people" around you may see things similarly to the way you see them because your consciousness made them up.

Or if there are other people, maybe your consciousness is translating the communication from their consciousness into a way in which you can relate?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Exactly. That's exactly right.

If you think about it too much, it'll freak you out. Or at least it freaks me out if I dwell on it too long.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by BlackButterfly

So the "your ___ is not my ___" thing, huh? So do you think that society forces individual consciousnesses to look at things in a predefined way (explaining why so many people see things similarly)?

I do... I think that todays society are normalising people with all the labels and even grades. I mean, think about grades: it's a paper sheet supposed to tell who you are. Would you want that? That's why people who are different are pushed away. Imagine what they would have done to Jesus today. Probably locked him into some madhouse, just because it'd be something different. 2000 years and NOTHING have changed.

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by BlackButterfly

...but then again, if it is true that reality is but a product of the observant consciousness, then why doesn't it seem to have total control over the environment it has created?

Some would say that with enough discipline this is possible. In fact, some refer to it as magic and use ritual and spellcraft to tap into the discipline needed to effect change in the environment around us.

Magic can be defined as the means and the process of altering reality to suit the Will. Aleister Crowley defined it, in Magic in Theory and Practice as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." Dion Fortune said that "Magic is the art of changing consciousness at will." Isaac Bonewits refers to magic as: A general term for arts, sciences, philosophies and technologies concerned with understanding and using various altered states of consciousness within which it is possible to have access to and control over one's psychic talents, and the uses and abuses of those psychic talents to change interior and/or exterior realities.

In essence, they are all talking about using the consciousness to have control over the environment.