The Impossibility of Absolute Unconsciousness in the 1st-Person

[Simon Adams]

In your metaphor of the rock and its stoniness, you’re using stoniness as a property of the rock. I would argue that experience isn’t a property of consciousness but rather that they are interchangeable synonyms.

Yes and I don't necessarily disagree with that (although there are clearly things in your consciousness that you are not aware of), but from the perspective of other ontologies, consciousness is a description of an emergent phenomena, and awareness is a property of that phenomena. To a physicalist this is no different from saying a rock emerges from various geological processes, and stoniness is a property of that rock.

Even within an idealist framework, I'm not sure this is an argument for phenomenal consciousness being eternal. You may have an opinion that the big bang was the start of forms being created within a pre-existing formless realm, but I don't see how your argument proves that.

[electricshephard]

Not necessarily. The 3-person perspective is only an abstraction, do not take it literally. Of course what is implied here is some actual 1-st person existing perspective, but just a perspective of a person non-involved in the functioning of the system under study, an observer "external" with respect to system's boundaries, so that such perspective can be theoretically abstracted and took out of the system equations provisionally. But of course if you take it literally, then your conclusion would be correct.

Abstractions can be useful, but in this instance the abstraction of a 3rd-person perspective doesn’t modulate the underlying logic that 1st-person consciousness is indestructible and everlasting,

What about the 1st person experience of becoming aware of an experience we had which we were not aware of at the time it happened, i.e. when previously 'unconscious' contents of experience are made conscious?

That would be an example of relative unconsciousness rather than absolute unconsciousness. The point of the thread is to demonstrate that 1st-person unconsciousness is impossible in absolute terms, and therefore is indestructible and everlasting. Also, usage of “time” as a dominant superstructure is axiomatic. Time exists within 1st-person consciousness, not the inverse. Or at least, that should be the assumption given that 1st-person consciousness has the capacity to defeat the Cartesian evil demon in a way that "time" cannot.

Even within an idealist framework, I'm not sure this is an argument for phenomenal consciousness being eternal. You may have an opinion that the big bang was the start of forms being created within a pre-existing formless realm, but I don't see how your argument proves that.

The original argument has no interest in pandering to the various unsubstantiated theories of the physicalists, but merely to lay down the foundations of what we know for certain:-

1st-person consciousness is possible.

1st-person unconsciousness is impossible.

Therefore, 1st-person consciousness is inevitable, and by extension everlasting.

Understanding this is a useful basis for exploring what the further implications of an eternal existence might be.

[AshvinP]

Not necessarily. The 3-person perspective is only an abstraction, do not take it literally. Of course what is implied here is some actual 1-st person existing perspective, but just a perspective of a person non-involved in the functioning of the system under study, an observer "external" with respect to system's boundaries, so that such perspective can be theoretically abstracted and took out of the system equations provisionally. But of course if you take it literally, then your conclusion would be correct.

Abstractions can be useful, but in this instance the abstraction of a 3rd-person perspective doesn’t modulate the underlying logic that 1st-person consciousness is indestructible and everlasting,

What about the 1st person experience of becoming aware of an experience we had which we were not aware of at the time it happened, i.e. when previously 'unconscious' contents of experience are made conscious?

That would be an example of relative unconsciousness rather than absolute unconsciousness. The point of the thread is to demonstrate that 1st-person unconsciousness is impossible in absolute terms, and therefore is indestructible and everlasting. Also, usage of “time” as a dominant superstructure is axiomatic. Time exists within 1st-person consciousness, not the inverse. Or at least, that should be the assumption given that 1st-person consciousness has the capacity to defeat the Cartesian evil demon in a way that "time" cannot.

I think I misunderstood your entire argument from the beginning. I assumed you were arguing that relative unconsciousness (in psychoanalytic sense), assuming idealism is true (i.e. consciousness is Ground), is impossible. If rather it is an argument against an absolute state of no consciousness, i.e. materialism or certain formulations of dualism, then I agree.