[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[skutvik at online.no]

Welcome Jan-Anders, too few non-americans on this forum. 

17 Aug. you said:

> There are two ways of solving this problem with Consciousness as an
> illusion. Discussing our opinions of it or testing it in the reality.

Who says that consciousness is illusory, certainly not the MOQ, but as 
always I wonder what we mean by that term. I suspect it is the "Hey I 
am a human being and over there is an animal not conscious of being 
an animal" kind AKA "selfawareness".  

> 1 According to Kant we can have a lot of opinions about the table
> itself but we will not know anything about the table itself. We know
> our sensations and thoughts about it but we cant bring the table
> itself into our brains, nor bring our brains into it. Some are then
> concerned about their thoughts in the same way but as René Descartes
> expressed it "I think, therefore I am"

Yes, and Kant was SOM brought to its final stage, most of experience 
is provided by the subject (Das Ding für Uns) but there still is an 
objective residue - Das Ding an Sich) - out there. After Kant Western 
philosophy atropied, everyhing became footnotes to Kant or took on 
some very peculiar topic - ecolology - Pirsig is the first thinker who not 
only challenges Kant, but SOM's root: Plato & Co.   

> If his thoughts where unreal it would be impossible to question them.
> You got to be consciuos to be able to discuss the consciuosnes,
> therefore consciuosness is real and not an illiusion 

Well, this is Descartes' - or SOM's - reasoning, but is not this way that 
the MOQ explains consciousness. It's part of the greater mind/matter 
paradox and by dissolving it consciousness becomes intellect's 
creation: a great value yet the self observing the world is not existence's 
deepest divide.  
 
> 2 Comparing two examples will tell us something about consciuosness in
> reality, just like putting an extra table upon the first. Now how can we
> look at the consciuosness as a reality? We know that our brains and our
> thoughts are real. So what is consciuosness. Awareness of ourselves? The
> brain cannot know anything about the reality but the sensations it get
> through our sensible system. Electric signals from our senses. The brain
> is making pictures and symbols from the signals about of the world
> outside. Tasting a Dr Pepper for example. The pictures are then tested by
> the brain by actions ordered from it. (Ordering another one). If the test
> fails the picture are redone and tested again. If the test is granted, the
> picture is saved in our memory. (The picture of the can and the picture of
> the taste is put together). That is how we build up our database of
> experiences in our memory about the world out there.

How many have come on about reality being electric signals turned into 
qualities in minds as if we don't know that this is SOM's "materialist" 
view, the "idealist" is that there just is mind. This is the mind/matter 
paradox that the MOQ is supposed to resolve. Wouldn't it be an idea to 
read LILA? 

> Consciousness is a picture of your unconsciuos thinking in your own
> brain, a mirror that show yourself what is there. You can then by some
> work make up another picture of your thinking and put the question:
> "What if I'm wrong, if my picture of myself is someway distorted? To
> think that you need another mirror of your unconsciuos thinking AND
> your mirror. You're now conscious about your consciuosness. Next step:
> You're then aware that you're consciuos about that you're consciuos
> about your consciuosness. STOP. Don't get lost in this madhouse of mind
> mirrors! Look down at the floor and follow the way out by the dirt
> tracks from former visitors that went through before. 

> You don't need any more mirrors than these. The primary question is
> how to maintain your own thinking. The mirror of consciousness is a
> tool you need. To give your thinking quality you also need a roadmap
> with a goal, a steering wheel and some gas.

What about brake?

Bodvar