If you had to choose between the following two circumstances, which would you pick:
A.) Everyone admires and respects you; you are known as friendly and benevolent; you are well praised for your beneficence and sense of good judgment and morality. Nevertheless, it is all an act. You know that acting in this way will please many people, however, at your core, you know that if presented with the opportunity to commit a vile act while being able to get away with it without ever getting caught or without even rousing the slightest suspicion, you would do so without hesitation.
B.) Before making a decision about anything in your life, you always ask yourself whether or not the decision is in accordance with good morality. Nevertheless, you are not the most charismatic person on the surface. Those who know you, only those very close to you, understand your attempts to live a moral and upright life, but you may often come across as aloof and reticent. It is very easy for others to assume the worst about you, because your reticence is often misinterpreted as arrogance or haughtiness.
I know which most people would choose. Most people, myself included, want to believe the best about themselves. I want to believe that I don't care much about the opinions of others to the extent that they would lead me to stray from a dedication to my principles. The truth is, however, the choice is not so simple.
I could have written scenarios A and B to be much more distanced from each other and hyperbolically inflated each scenario to make the choice seem even easier (i.e., everyone loves you but you are a horrible person vs. everyone hates you and you are a splendid person). I tried to avoid that and hopefully made each choice seem a bit more realistic and not as drastic.
It is easy to be moral person and well-liked; it is much more difficult to undertake an inner moral journey and undergo the pain and displeasure of a bad reputation.
I can only hope that if I am indeed on a spiritual path, that I would continue to traverse it regardless of my social standing. I don't know if I am really strong enough for that. Would the pressures of wanting to be well-received and well-liked ever conflict with the morality I profess? I can only ask for Divine Assistance in such a case, for my own will may falter, and my spiritual core, perish.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Can you prove that you are conscious?
What is consciousness?
Is a rock conscious? The soil? A cell? A tree? What about an ant, or a dog? Are you?
Merriam-Webster's defines consciousness in several ways, such as "the quality or state of being aware..", and "the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious process" (this second definition seems to be more psychologically rooted in origin, as the Freudian distinction between the tiers of consciousness, namely the id, ego, and superego, comes to mind).
Searching for various definitions of consciousness would probably lead one to conclude that the unifying characteristic of consciousness is awareness.
So now we must reconsider if a rock is aware. Seems like a silly question; of course a rock can't be aware...right? How do you know? Can you prove that a rock is either aware or unaware?
In that sense, can you prove that anyone else is aware?
I am not trained in philosophy, so it is quite possible that I am mistaken, and if I am, then I would quickly accede to the fact; but the only conclusion, it seems, is that there is no way to prove that other people are aware, or conscious.
In fact, how then can I prove to others that I am conscious of myself. It is taken for granted and assumed that we are all conscious beings, but remember that this is not based on objective and irrefutable proof. Let me clarify. You can assume that I am conscious because the mere fact that I am even writing about it is tremendous evidence supporting that I am a conscious being. However, there is no external and objective means that I can use to prove that I am conscious.
You can prove through objective and physiological means that there is electrical activity in certain parts of the brain that are responsible for what we know as "consciousness", but in the end, this is only proof that the neurons are working; the elusive proof of consciousness as an entity in and of itself still evades us.
In essence, you cannot prove that others are conscious. You can however, show rather profound evidence supporting the fact that others are conscious, or that your level of consciousness is higher or more sophisticated than, say for instance, a dog's or an insect's.
So if there is no absolute objective and measurable proof of the existence of this elusive concept of consciousness in others, what about ourselves? Can I prove, for instance, to myself, through purely objective and measurable techniques, that I possess consciousness? Perhaps the closest any individual can come to proving their own consciousness is their own subjective experience of the fact that they are conscious, and yet this would not suffice as proof in the strictest scientific sense of the term.
So because we cannot prove consciousness in a purely scientific, objective, and measurable manner, does that mean that we should stop believing in consciousness? The question itself is absurd, and yet many would argue that because we cannot prove the existence of God in a purely scientific, objective, and measurable manner, that we should not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.
Of course it is important to note that while you may be certain of your own consciousness because of your subjective psychological experience of it, you may argue that you have not had such an experience with a Supreme Being, or God.
Many, throughout history and in our present day, can testify to having had subjective experiences of proximity with a Divine Essence. Not all have claimed to have such an experience.
This is where the distinction lies.
Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that we take the existence of our own consciousness, and that of others, for granted, without the necessity of objective proof and purely based on our subjective experience of our own consciousness.
Try to convince someone who believes they are conscious because they can experience it that consciousness does not exist.
Likewise, for those who have had subjective experiences of a mystical, divine, or religious nature, the existence of a Divine Being seems obvious.
For those who have not had such an experience, in the same way that they experience their own consciousness, there are only three options: believe in a Divine Being based purely on faith*, believe that such a Being cannot exist absent any objective (or even subjective) evidence, or choose the path of agnosticism and merely claim, "I don't know."
*There are 2 types of faith.
One is merely a reasoned faith absent any subjective experience. For example, someone believes in God because they have been raised in a religious household, or perhaps they see that many people around them believe in God and therefore they believe in Him as well.
A second type of Faith is based on a subjective experience of the Divine Essence. This is what is commonly known as a mystical experience. There are many examples of such experiences, but one well-known example is Saul's vision on the road to Damascus, after which he became known as Paul.
Saul, it seems, possessed the first type of faith, while Paul possessed the second type of Faith.
Is a rock conscious? The soil? A cell? A tree? What about an ant, or a dog? Are you?
Merriam-Webster's defines consciousness in several ways, such as "the quality or state of being aware..", and "the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious process" (this second definition seems to be more psychologically rooted in origin, as the Freudian distinction between the tiers of consciousness, namely the id, ego, and superego, comes to mind).
Searching for various definitions of consciousness would probably lead one to conclude that the unifying characteristic of consciousness is awareness.
So now we must reconsider if a rock is aware. Seems like a silly question; of course a rock can't be aware...right? How do you know? Can you prove that a rock is either aware or unaware?
In that sense, can you prove that anyone else is aware?
I am not trained in philosophy, so it is quite possible that I am mistaken, and if I am, then I would quickly accede to the fact; but the only conclusion, it seems, is that there is no way to prove that other people are aware, or conscious.
In fact, how then can I prove to others that I am conscious of myself. It is taken for granted and assumed that we are all conscious beings, but remember that this is not based on objective and irrefutable proof. Let me clarify. You can assume that I am conscious because the mere fact that I am even writing about it is tremendous evidence supporting that I am a conscious being. However, there is no external and objective means that I can use to prove that I am conscious.
You can prove through objective and physiological means that there is electrical activity in certain parts of the brain that are responsible for what we know as "consciousness", but in the end, this is only proof that the neurons are working; the elusive proof of consciousness as an entity in and of itself still evades us.
In essence, you cannot prove that others are conscious. You can however, show rather profound evidence supporting the fact that others are conscious, or that your level of consciousness is higher or more sophisticated than, say for instance, a dog's or an insect's.
So if there is no absolute objective and measurable proof of the existence of this elusive concept of consciousness in others, what about ourselves? Can I prove, for instance, to myself, through purely objective and measurable techniques, that I possess consciousness? Perhaps the closest any individual can come to proving their own consciousness is their own subjective experience of the fact that they are conscious, and yet this would not suffice as proof in the strictest scientific sense of the term.
So because we cannot prove consciousness in a purely scientific, objective, and measurable manner, does that mean that we should stop believing in consciousness? The question itself is absurd, and yet many would argue that because we cannot prove the existence of God in a purely scientific, objective, and measurable manner, that we should not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.
Of course it is important to note that while you may be certain of your own consciousness because of your subjective psychological experience of it, you may argue that you have not had such an experience with a Supreme Being, or God.
Many, throughout history and in our present day, can testify to having had subjective experiences of proximity with a Divine Essence. Not all have claimed to have such an experience.
This is where the distinction lies.
Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that we take the existence of our own consciousness, and that of others, for granted, without the necessity of objective proof and purely based on our subjective experience of our own consciousness.
Try to convince someone who believes they are conscious because they can experience it that consciousness does not exist.
Likewise, for those who have had subjective experiences of a mystical, divine, or religious nature, the existence of a Divine Being seems obvious.
For those who have not had such an experience, in the same way that they experience their own consciousness, there are only three options: believe in a Divine Being based purely on faith*, believe that such a Being cannot exist absent any objective (or even subjective) evidence, or choose the path of agnosticism and merely claim, "I don't know."
*There are 2 types of faith.
One is merely a reasoned faith absent any subjective experience. For example, someone believes in God because they have been raised in a religious household, or perhaps they see that many people around them believe in God and therefore they believe in Him as well.
A second type of Faith is based on a subjective experience of the Divine Essence. This is what is commonly known as a mystical experience. There are many examples of such experiences, but one well-known example is Saul's vision on the road to Damascus, after which he became known as Paul.
Saul, it seems, possessed the first type of faith, while Paul possessed the second type of Faith.
The Real and the Ideal
My ideals are too lofty. I doubt I can ever reach them, or even the shadow that they cast.
My life and my actions are not always representative of my ideals. If I were to list my ideals and you videotaped my every action and had telepathic access to my thoughts, you would soon realize that there is a huge gap between what I believe and what I do.
Yet is this an excuse for not striving? Should we not have ideals, because not having them would inevitably spare us the guarantee of failure and a more complacent existence?
This is not a viable solution however, for growth is only achieved by constantly measuring the gap between your actions and beliefs, and taking steps to approach the ideals you profess.
This process will guarantee failures and mistakes, but it will also, if done sincerely and not for the sake of ostentation, lead to personal and spiritual growth.
My life and my actions are not always representative of my ideals. If I were to list my ideals and you videotaped my every action and had telepathic access to my thoughts, you would soon realize that there is a huge gap between what I believe and what I do.
Yet is this an excuse for not striving? Should we not have ideals, because not having them would inevitably spare us the guarantee of failure and a more complacent existence?
This is not a viable solution however, for growth is only achieved by constantly measuring the gap between your actions and beliefs, and taking steps to approach the ideals you profess.
This process will guarantee failures and mistakes, but it will also, if done sincerely and not for the sake of ostentation, lead to personal and spiritual growth.
Balance
Everything occurs in contrasts. Light and dark. Hot and cold. Order and chaos.
And yet each opposing nature is unified by the fact that both are defined by one particular quality, albeit at varying degrees at opposing poles.
For example, heat can be defined as an abundance of energy, while cold can be defined as a lack of energy.
At one end there is extremism in amount, while the opposing side lacks that "quality", yet both are defined by that one quality (in the above example, for instance, the quality is energy).
To truly know and understand one (not in a superficial, definitive sense, but in an experiential manner) you must know the other. Someone who has risen from abject poverty, through hard work and laborious pursuit, to a state of financial stability and comfort, can truly understand and process the significance of what they now possess. It is much more difficult for someone who has not undergone such a transformative process, for instance one who is born into such comforts, to truly appreciate the value of what they have, as they have not experienced its opposite.
Even in our trials, let us remind ourselves that the pain and difficulty is akin to sowing a field, the harvest being a true appreciation of the good in our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)