# Consciousness freaks me out



## Polednice

I very often find myself thinking, "why am I me?"

Why am I not you? Or someone else I know? Or someone else in this country? Or one of the other billions of people who are living right now? Or one of the billions who lived in the past, or will live in the future? Why _this_ time in _this_ body with _this_ mind?

I can empathise with some people's intuitive feeling that reincarnation exists (though I think it's nonsense, of course) because it seems so mind-bogglingly ridiculous that I should only ever exist in this one consciousness out of billions. But just as I have no experience of consciousnesses before my life, I will certainly have no conscious experience once I'm dead.

So what am I to make of this consciousness I've been dumped with? This sensation of intellectual being which is attached to a strange monkey cage? It's just trickery, isn't it? In the same way that love, though beautifully real the for the feeler, is just the illusion of a thousand complex chemical reactions, so my feeling of "being" is just a mirage fostered by the trillion cells that make me in order for them to have a collective memory, and an ability to imagine the future, so that they can improve their chances at reproductive success.

It's just that a weird, unexpected off-shoot in their generation of the conscious brain was the ability for me to feel like my mind is separate; like I should feel other perspectives and times; and ought to contemplate science, art, politics, and culture. My consciousness is a wondrous accident. No matter how it feels, it is nothing more than the product of a unique combination of mindless tissues and organs, but here it is anyway. Love is no less real for knowing its cause, and nor is my mind. So I'll exploit it in the few decades that I have, and betray the genes that gave me this gift by ignoring their wish for children!

So, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahh.....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

A question I often ask myself: "Why do I act like such a ... a ... Wow I don't really know if there is a stereotype that fits my description. Maybe that's why I ended up as me and not someone else. If that makes sense. Which it doesn't ... "

Not really a question.

So, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahh.....


----------



## Dodecaplex

I've been asking myself these questions for years. The answer, of course, is that these questions belong to the realm of nonsense (i.e. they cannot be expressed clearly as they cannot be answered clearly either).

Tractatus 6.44:
"It's not _how_ the world is what's mystical, but _that_ it is."


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> I've been asking myself these questions for years. The answer, of course, is that these questions belong to the realm of nonsense (i.e. they cannot be expressed clearly as they cannot be answered clearly either).
> 
> Tractatus 6.44:
> "It's not _how_ the world is what's mystical, but _that_ it is."


Nonsense is the best sense.


----------



## starthrower

Interrelatedness is a fact of our existence, so "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."

Here's a book you may find interesting. It's one of my favorites!
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Seven_mysteries_of_life.html?id=Cq0AqNmeaHYC


----------



## aleazk

well, poled, that's the key existential question that we all have, and it can drive you mad if you become obsessed with it (believe me ). I find the world (reality) in which we live as an absolute mistery (and as a physicist, it's even worse: such odd things, like that for the only fact that the earth has mass it changes the flow of time around!!).


----------



## aleazk

and @dode, you should not dismiss metaphysical questions so easily. All physical theories have some primitive metaphysical assumptions (even the supposition that reality _exists_ and is objective is a metaphysical assumption, which is essential to science because it justifies the scientific method, but precisely for this reason, it cannot be attacked with this method, so we must accept this supposition as true if we want to do science)


----------



## Guest

Think about this - your conscious perceptions lag the rest of your brain by about a second. So by the time you've "decided" something, your body is already doing it. Arguably your consciousness is just along for the ride.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> My consciousness is a wondrous accident. No matter how it feels, it is nothing more than the product of a unique combination of mindless tissues and organs, but here it is anyway. Love is no less real for knowing its cause, and nor is my mind. So I'll exploit it in the few decades that I have, and betray the genes that gave me this gift by ignoring their wish for children!
> 
> So, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahh.....


I wrote a story about that actually, about a guy who thought a little like that. In the end, his solution to the problem of meaninglessness and Love (something meaningful) existing in the world at the same time was that he realized he was a part of a picture bigger than himself in which he played a very special role only repeated at best once a generation (in the story that idea has more clarity than out of context). Thus, he recognized his purpose and subsequently his worth, and so in the story, I imply that he resolves to live out his purpose because he realizes that's the only reason he lives.

It's honest of you to recognize your own tiny, meaningless existence, because that's what it _is _currently for you. Recognition is the first step; but it's not the final step. You haven't discovered the real purpose of your life yet. You may have come to some conclusions about yourself, that you are gifted to do certain things, that you can live for others, etc. and yet it doesn't quite hit the bottom of the issue. Of course we've gone over this subject repeatedly, and I've about given up telling you it, but I'm not surprised you've rejected it so many times. But it's not an accident that you are the way you are. You were created with a purpose. Your conscious was given to you so that you could live _for _something.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I wrote a story about that actually, about a guy who thought a little like that. In the end, his solution to the problem of meaninglessness and Love (something meaningful) existing in the world at the same time was that he realized he was a part of a picture bigger than himself in which he played a very special role only repeated at best once a generation (in the story that idea has more clarity than out of context). Thus, he recognized his purpose and subsequently his worth, and so in the story, I imply that he resolves to live out his purpose because he realizes that's the only reason he lives.
> 
> It's honest of you to recognize your own tiny, meaningless existence, because that's what it _is _currently for you. Recognition is the first step; but it's not the final step. You haven't discovered the real purpose of your life yet. You may have come to some conclusions about yourself, that you are gifted to do certain things, that you can live for others, etc. and yet it doesn't quite hit the bottom of the issue. Of course we've gone over this subject repeatedly, and I've about given up telling you it, but I'm not surprised you've rejected it so many times. But it's not an accident that you are the way you are. You were created with a purpose. Your conscious was given to you so that you could live _for _something.


They day I stop struggling to forge a purpose for myself because I feel like I've finally found a true, unwavering purpose is a sad day for my personal development. :tiphat:


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Huilunsoittaja said:


> But it's not an accident that you are the way you are. You were created with a purpose. Your conscious[ness] was given to you so that you could live _for _something.


Animals with sufficiently complex nervous systems (including all vertebrates, many molluscs, and some arthropods) evidently have consciousness--they certainly behave as though they do--without seemingly having any sense of being created for a purpose, or having been given something to live for. In my opinion, consciousness is just a coordination of sensory input, memory, learning, and behaviour. Humans have it to a higher degree than any other animal, but it is only a matter of degree.


----------



## Dodecaplex

aleazk said:


> and @dode, you should not dismiss metaphysical questions so easily. All physical theories have some primitive metaphysical assumptions (even the supposition that reality _exists_ and is objective is a metaphysical assumption, which is essential to science because it justifies the scientific method, but precisely for this reason, it cannot be attacked with this method, so we must accept this supposition as true if we want to do science)


If by dismiss, you mean that I consider them to be irrelevant or that they don't matter, then no, that's not what I think of metaphysical questions at all. To me, metaphysical questions are in fact a billion times more important than physical questions (hence the quote in my signature); however, at the same time, I'm a follower of the Wittgensteinian school of thought that says these questions are impossible to ask or answer, which is why they're considered nonsense.


----------



## aleazk

Dodecaplex said:


> If by dismiss, you mean that I consider them to be irrelevant or that they don't matter, then no, that's not what I think of metaphysical questions at all. To me, metaphysical questions are in fact a billion times more important than physical questions (hence the quote in my signature); however, at the same time, I'm a follower of the Wittgensteinian school of thought that says these questions are impossible to ask or answer, which is why they're considered nonsense.


ok, I get it now. yes, I have some similar position, although I'm not very a pure Wittgensteinian. i think that, although some of the questions may be in fact unanswerables (following Wittgenstein reasoning), we can actually dig in some aspects relevant to the ontology of some things using physicis. you may say , let me explain. According to newtonian mechanics, a particle has all the time a well defined position and velocity for example. Now, these are primitive suppositions about the ontology of the particle. Of course, these suppositions don't represent an answer to the fundamental ontological question of What is really a particle?, but they are related to this question. Now, according to quantum mechanics, these newtonian primitive suppositions are wrong, observables are described by operators and unless the state of the system is an eigenstate of the observable, the numerical value of this observable is not defined. So, a change in our fundamental theories of nature can lead to a better understanding of things related to the ontology of the particle, basically because we also change our initial primitive suppositions about the ontology as we change the theory, generally because these primitive suppositions are deeply embedded into the theory.


----------



## Dodecaplex

aleazk said:


> ok, I get it now. yes, I have some similar position, although I'm not very a pure Wittgensteinian. i think that, although some of the questions may be in fact unanswerables (following Wittgenstein reasoning), we can actually dig in *some* aspects relevant to the ontology of *some* things using physicis. you may say , let me explain. According to newtonian mechanics, a particle has all the time a well defined position and velocity for example. Now, these are primitive suppositions about the ontology of the particle. Of course, these suppositions don't represent an answer to the fundamental ontological question of What is really a particle?, but they are *related* to this question. Now, according to quantum mechanics, these newtonian primitive suppositions are wrong, observables are described by operators and unless the state of the system is an eigenstate of the obserbable, the numerical value of this obserbable is not defined. So, a change in our fundamental theories of nature can leads to a better understanding of things *related* to the ontology of the particle, basically because we also change our initial primitive suppositions about the ontology as we change the theory, generally because these primitive suppositions are deeply embedded into the theory.


Essentially, I agree with you; however, what I'd like to emphasize much more is that, like you said, physics only helps us dig into _some_ aspects relevant to the ontology of _some_ things. This _some_ is extremely important and cannot be ignored. What physics can give us is only half the answer, which is, again like you said, only _related_ to whatever the actual answer to the question is/isn't.

What's interesting is that these limitations that are imposed upon us are the reason we crave for a better understanding in the first place. We look at the Mystical and, unable to comprehend _what_ it is, we try to understand _how_ it is the way it is. But for the love of Planck's bald spot, how much I wish I knew the _what_. 

Edit: forgive me Wittgy, I almost crossed the line there.


----------



## aleazk

Dodecaplex said:


> Essentially, I agree with you; however, what I'd like to emphasize much more is that, like you said, physics only helps us dig into _some_ aspects relevant to the ontology of _some_ things. This _some_ is extremely important and cannot be ignored. What physics can give us is only half the answer, which is, again like you said, only _related_ to whatever the actual answer to the question is/isn't.
> 
> What's interesting is that these limitations that are imposed upon us are the reason we crave for a better understanding in the first place. We look at the Mystical and, unable to comprehend _what_ it is, we try to understand _how_ it is the way it is. But for the love of Planck's bald spot, how much I wish I knew the _what_.
> 
> Edit: forgive me Wittgy, I almost crossed the line there.


yes, we agree in 100%. Nice to see someone who can talk this things. Regards.
edit: and that's the reason why I study physics, so far, it's the only discipline that have given some insight into these matters, partial, yes, but _something_ (insert meme here ). And, of course, I share your last statement... *WHAT IS THIS REALITY IN WHICH WE LIVE? YES, BUT WHAT?!!*


----------



## Sid James

Bill Bryson goes into this and other things in his _Short History of Nearly Everything_. It's in simple English, I'd recommend it to anyone with these kinds of questions.

At the start, he talks about these kinds of things in his introduction HERE at googlebooks (the second result of this search, the second extract, I couldn't get this bloody thing to work properly).

I am interested in reincarnation, in past lives. A Buddhist person told me that it's comforting to believe that, because you're just a link in the chain. This life is not the end of all life for you. YOu move on into other lives, other states of consciousness. There have been reports of people "remembering" past lives down to very small detail. I'm not sure what I make of this but it was an interesting conversation.

As for animals, I think they have intelligence and they live by instinct. But the bottom line is that unlike us, they don't know that they will die. They don't have a concept of mortality. & this thing about finiteness is kind of an aspect of being human.

Scientists have been developing drugs for decades to allow us to live for like 300 years. Sir Peter Ustinov, the late UK actor, said he didn't see this as important, to live that long time. He said you have your time on this earth, and that's it. You do with it what you can. There has to be a beginning, middle and an end. What he said in that interview years ago was also interesting. But I think certain people can't accept mortality. They can't accept ageing. Look at some of the movie stars who do all this plastic surgery and use all these tricks to look like they're 21 for eternity. Is that natural? Do they kind of fear death? In ancient cultures, the life cycle was accepted as normal. They fit into nature not make nature fit to their needs. It's the reverse now. WE want to manipulate nature, to cheat death, etc.

Now I don't know if all this is relevant, but anyway...


----------



## Dodecaplex

aleazk said:


> *WHAT IS THIS REALITY IN WHICH WE LIVE? YES, BUT WHAT?!!*


This is the reality that we live in!


----------



## aleazk

Dodecaplex said:


> This is the reality that we live in!


hahaha, the odd part is that maybe that's true!!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

^^ that's known as Rationalism, that we can't believe our own senses, because our own experiences could be falsified, according to Des Cartes. His solution was that we would analyze reality by basing everything on certain "absolute truths." That's the origin of the famous phrase, "I think, therefore I am," because Des Cartes' only certainty of reality was his own existence. In some ways, that's humble of him.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> I very often find myself thinking, "why am I me?"
> 
> Why am I not you? Or someone else I know? Or someone else in this country? Or one of the other billions of people who are living right now? Or one of the billions who lived in the past, or will live in the future? Why _this_ time in _this_ body with _this_ mind?
> 
> I can empathise with some people's intuitive feeling that reincarnation exists (though I think it's nonsense, of course) because it seems so mind-bogglingly ridiculous that I should only ever exist in this one consciousness out of billions. But just as I have no experience of consciousnesses before my life, I will certainly have no conscious experience once I'm dead.
> 
> So what am I to make of this consciousness I've been dumped with? This sensation of intellectual being which is attached to a strange monkey cage? It's just trickery, isn't it? In the same way that love, though beautifully real the for the feeler, is just the illusion of a thousand complex chemical reactions, so my feeling of "being" is just a mirage fostered by the trillion cells that make me in order for them to have a collective memory, and an ability to imagine the future, so that they can improve their chances at reproductive success.
> 
> It's just that a weird, unexpected off-shoot in their generation of the conscious brain was the ability for me to feel like my mind is separate; like I should feel other perspectives and times; and ought to contemplate science, art, politics, and culture. My consciousness is a wondrous accident. No matter how it feels, it is nothing more than the product of a unique combination of mindless tissues and organs, but here it is anyway. Love is no less real for knowing its cause, and nor is my mind. So I'll exploit it in the few decades that I have, and betray the genes that gave me this gift by ignoring their wish for children!
> 
> So, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahh.....


Given the GIGAKABILLION of insects and animals that exist, you sir, are a human. In addition, we were birthed in the most luxuriously developed nations in the world. Also, somewhere along the way we were allowed to develop exquisite taste in music. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? We have so much to be thankful for!


----------



## Dodecaplex

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ^^ that's known as Rationalism, that we can't believe our own senses, because our own experiences could be falsified . . .


The "brain in a vat" scenario is actually more related to skepticism and solipsism rather than rationalism. Rationalism simply states that reason has precedence over sensory experience, which doesn't necessarily mean we can't believe our own senses. What you're describing is at the extreme end of the spectrum.


----------



## Polednice

If the brain knew it was in a vat, wouldn't it have to ask the same questions again, just about a different world?


----------



## Philip

Polednice said:


> I very often find myself thinking, "why am I me?"
> 
> Why am I not you? Or someone else I know? Or someone else in this country? Or one of the other billions of people who are living right now? Or one of the billions who lived in the past, or will live in the future? Why _this_ time in _this_ body with _this_ mind?


in my view there is no distinction between body and "mind". so i don't bother asking myself questions about the soul, life after death, religion, etc. actually i did ask myself these questions at one point, like everyone else i guess, but that's how i answer them; there is no soul.

but for all we know, life could be the matrix, as illustrated a few posts above.


----------



## Polednice

Philip said:


> in my view there is no distinction between body and "mind". so i don't bother asking myself questions about the soul, life after death, religion, etc. actually i did ask myself these questions at one point, like everyone else i guess, but that's how i answer them; there is no soul.
> 
> but for all we know, life could be the matrix, as illustrated a few posts above.


Yes, I don't think there is any real distinction between the mind and body either - it's just a very funky illusion that is hard to shake off unless you actively think about it.


----------



## TxllxT

Philip said:


> in my view there is no distinction between body and "mind". so i don't bother asking myself questions about the soul, life after death, religion, etc. actually i did ask myself these questions at one point, like everyone else i guess, but that's how i answer them; there is no soul.
> 
> but for all we know, life could be the matrix, as illustrated a few posts above.


Both soul and spirit (_Nephesh, pneuma, ghost_) in ancient times were taken to be quite 'windy' and ungraspable indeed. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (Joh*3:8*KJV) When there is no wind in the body, the body in ancient times was assumed to be dead. Why to deny so frantically: "There is no soul"? It sounds quite deadish to me.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

This is an interesting question. It could be endlessly pondered. Perhaps we are just who we are by chance or maybe there is a reason for everything being the way it is. Sometimes it seems like things happen for a reason. No one can come to a certain conclusion however. This question could be mulled over forever like so many because of lack of proof. It is simply a matter of personal belief. I often think of questions like this as well. For example: What if my life is simply something I'm imagining? I'm am simply in some strang state (almost like hibernation) where I am simply imagining that it all exists? I can come to a conclusion for that however. I am a morning person. I would never sleep this long.


----------



## Lukecash12

Surely you've read the works of Immanuel Kant? It seems more and more to me that you could stand to take a short foray into the great philosophers, rather than Goethe. You are always asking questions that are part and parcel for figures like Kant.

However, it seems to me that you often have ethical inclinations regarding existentialism, so why not try Martin Buber's _Ich und Du_? But more incisive to the points you make here, is Descartes' _cogito ergo sum_: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4

As for your questions regarding whether or not you are someone else, basically meaning that you call into question any other identity and any other fact than your existence being necessarily true, you might be interested in counterfactual conditionals. A counterfactual conditional is a conditional if/then statement indicating what would be the case if it's antecedent were true.

Take this as an example of a counterfactual conditional-

If Oswald *1*_had not_ shot Kennedy, then someone else *2*_would have_.

Notice that *1*"had not shot" and *2*"would have" are used instead of *1*"did not shoot" and *2*"did".

I define all of this in order to make the argument that if your own existence was the only reliably verifiable fact, then counterfactual conditionals would be true. You don't state counterfactual conditionals and find them to be true, do you? If not, then you aren't the only one existing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

This might be of interest:

I was watching some British television show from the late 80s early 90s where there was this one episode with a main plot set around the idea of chance and coincedence. At one point in the story, one of the characters realised that his whole existence was because his grandfather never got a certain letter from some girlfriend of his over fifty years ago. The letter had happened to fall under the floorboards when they were being replaced or something like that. The letter had asked his grandfather to reply, but because his grandfather never found it, his grandfather ended up marrying someone different and therefore having a different child who in that particular episode found the letter and realised that his whole existence was basically a mistake. If the floorboards were not being replaced back when his grandfather should have received the letter, than that character would never had been born at all and his grandfather would have married someone entirely different. Weird isn't it?


----------



## science

Contingency is fascinating.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> Contingency is fascinating.


Quite right, science.


----------



## kv466

It may be freaky but wonderful. I prefer being perfectly aware of my surroundings to being blissfully ignorant of them.


----------



## Ralfy

Reminds me of Ligotti's _Conspiracy Against the Human Race_.


----------

