Is consciousness a good thing or a bad thing?

[tar]

Marat,

 

I am not familiar with Peter Strawson. Perhaps I will get so, after I grasp the "categories" as laid out in the "Critique of Pure Reason".

 

As you know, I am after the meaning behind the words, and the "physical reality" that makes our consciousness possible. In this, I would imagine that the "outside stability" is not only the other human consciounesses that we have to look at ourselves through the eyes of, but also the evolutionary history of the human species, that has given us "the vehicle" with which we experience the world.

 

Not only is it difficult to imagine an other than human perspective. There is a question in my mind as to what purpose it would serve to take such a perspective, even if it was possible.

 

Though to me, and perhaps you, Nazis were (are) bad, it is the preponderance of people that hold the same determination, that matters. If there are those in the world that are my friends, and those who are my enemies, those who go by my rules and those who do not, it is my place to help my friends to succeed and cause my enemies to fail where ever the imposition of their rules will defeat the maintanence of my rules (what I know to be good.)

 

Would be strange indeed to program a machine (or any "other than human mind" to determine what is good and what is bad under these circumstances, and "go by" their determination.

 

It is up to humans to determine what is best...for humans.

 

We would not have courts, if this was objectively determinable.

 

That is, we can objectively view ourselves, by putting ourselves in the shoes of some other entity...but it is always "us" standing in the shoes.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 20, 2011 by tar

[kitkat]

According to some views we are mostly operating on auto pilot so from nature's perspective consciousness is expensive. It also creates chaos in my opinion

[questionposter]

Is it better to be aware of the outside world and of pain, pleasure, and emotions or be blind to them and not have the ability to know that you feel them?

For instance as conscious beings we know we will die and a vast majority of us (not all of us) have a hard time accepting the inevitable, for this we live with an 'absence of death' we don't think about it. but Mice and most of the animal kingdom do not know what pain feels like, by this I mean to say that they lack the ability to know that they are being hurt. So is it better to be a mouse, completely blind out the outside world, or a conscious being and aware and conscious of this world and all that it means?

 

Something about your description of consciousness doesn't make sense. It isn't necessarily something to do with feeling pain, even though its been scientifically proven that even fish feel pain based on how they react, brain scans and the fact that endorphin are in their bloodstream only after they have been hurt. In any case, the good and bad is relative. If you hate your life, then I'd imagine it's a bad thing, and if you like your life, I'd imagine its a good thing.

Edited October 29, 2011 by questionposter

[questionposter]

Something about your description of consciousness doesn't make sense. It isn't necessarily something to do with feeling pain, even though its been scientifically proven that even fish feel pain based on how they react, brain scans and the fact that endorphin are in their bloodstream only after they have been hurt. In any case, the good and bad is relative. If you hate your life, then I'd imagine consciousness is a bad thing, and if you like your life, I'd imagine its a good thing.

[Peron]

The existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote that consciousness, in its nagging, dogging, ceaseless persistence, can be one of the most excruciating tortures humans are subjected to, since there is no easy way to escape the constant presence of the atmosphere of the self and its distinctive style of interpreting things, which even the self itself might get sick of (just as friends and relatives sometimes do!). It is to escape the endless stream of commentary by the self on experience -- the way it augments it and often worsens it by reflection -- that people become drug addicts, alcoholics, or retreat into excessive sleep or psychosis.

 

If you actually reflect on all the bad things that have happened and will happen in your life, it is evident that anticipating them, reflecting on them, analyzing them, and remembering them makes them all thousands of times worse than they would be if your consciousness had been much dimmer and had only really noticed what was happening when it happened and no longer. Since humans are organically organized entities, and the world is governed by entropy which opposes that organization, the natural tendency of things is for what we need and want -- our integrity and organization to be preserved -- to be damaged and destroyed. This means that the net effect of the world on us is negative, so the ability of our consciousness to magnify experience only adds to our misery.

 

As the Ancient Greek myth of Silenus says, "The best thing for man is never to have been born, or, failing that, to cease to exist as soon as possible."

 

Is there any way you could give me a reference to where Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that? Thanks.

[morgsboi]

Well, it has to be either neutral or good. Think about it, if you didn't have conciousness, you wouldn't know if it was good or bad.

[Sciman101]

Is it better to be aware of the outside world and of pain, pleasure, and emotions or be blind to them and not have the ability to know that you feel them?

For instance as conscious beings we know we will die and a vast majority of us (not all of us) have a hard time accepting the inevitable, for this we live with an 'absence of death' we don't think about it. but Mice and most of the animal kingdom do not know what pain feels like, by this I mean to say that they lack the ability to know that they are being hurt. So is it better to be a mouse, completely blind out the outside world, or a conscious being and aware and conscious of this world and all that it means?

 

This is an interesting question, and makes me think of the saying "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?" Honestly, in response to your question, I believe it's better to feel and be conscious than the opposite. If you can't feel sadness, you wouldn't be able to understand happiness. Why would anyone want to live a life so dull? And your comment of Animals not feeling pain - if they don't, then why would they run away from you after you hit them? Anyway, have a great one!

[runlikell]

Is consciousness good or bad? Such a question cannot be answered objectively without first defining the terms 'good' and 'bad' objectively. What truly does it mean for something to be good, or bad? Definitions vary around the world, and history provides many explanations, some containing contradictory pieces. However, by and large, there is common ground within the bulk of minds advanced enough to have notions of such concepts. And all the common ground is centered around consciousness as a prerequisite for good and bad. No consciousness = no good nor bad. Good, in essence, always amounts to states of well-being, while bad does too but represents the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

This is why, in my opinion, Einstein said that the most important question one can ask is whether the universe is a friendly place. I think what he was getting at is, that whether the universe is such that it is both capable of and destined to support sustainable conscious well-being, is the most important question one could ask. If the answer were to be no, that conscious suffering was inescapable, the answer to the original post of this thread becomes uncertain. If the answer were a strong no, that suffering was the inescapable destiny of all consciousness unfortunate to have emerged, then the answer would be a definite no--ie, consciousness would surely be a bad thing.

 

Fortunately, it appears that the universe is indeed a friendly place. Consciousness is not trapped by the laws of science to forever remain in torment; we can rise above our roots of suffering, and the appears down the horizon--within short distance actually; attainable, indeed, within the lifetime of many folks reading this--that a universe dominated by consciousness which has harnessed control of its own state and eliminated unwanted suffering, is quite probable.

 

Sit back and enjoy the show, for heaven is no destination for the deceased, but an attainable place to be constructed through highly advanced technology which will rapidly emerge by way of the law of accelerating returns. In the long run, things will only get better; such is the way things have been for as far back as we can look, and will be the way things go for as far as we can extrapolate--ultimate goodness, so it seems, is the fate of the universe.

Edited March 22, 2012 by runlikell

[snowflake]

Might seem irrelevant but are there any clues that the poor animals are not conscious?

I agree with you runlikell, a question of the sort "is it good or bad?" is not enough accurate to be logically debatable.