As a way of teaching about god the Rev. Ransom Bethune Welch, an American professor, produced in 1876 (Modern Thought: Bibliotheca Sacra) a marvellous article presenting ideas on mind and his deity. He held that knowledge begins in consciousness (does it?), the subjective factor primary and chief, and needs to be studied to 'ascertain what can be known and how it can be known.' He declared the scope of our knowledge is the scope of our consciousness, and that whatever is presented to consciousness becomes knowledge.
He believed that the primary law of thought requires both content and agency-something that thinks, and something about what it thinks (subject/object). How is content furnished? He asks. Is this to be answered a priori or a posteriori?
He asserted that all knowledge belongs to the mind not to agencies, such as science. His was a religious viewpoint based on philosophy.
RE: ...He held that knowledge begins in consciousness (does it?)
Some would argue that we have certain kinds of innate knowledge. But maybe consciousness is still required for it to be activated or transformed into something accessible.
Apparently foetuses are capable of learning, which requires perceptual awareness of some sort. Is that consciousness?
https://www.babble.com/pregnancy/learning-fetus-development-in-the-womb-prenatal/
Perhaps some distinction needs to made between consciousness per se and selfconsciousness....
The author would have concluded that the ultimate agency (switch if you like) is god (in whatever form). My answer to that is that this simply initiates a species of thinking based on set ideas, and cannot therefore be said to initiate knowledge only knowledge of...
Probably not; you could have knowledge without being conscious of it. In that case, such knowledge is not recognised and not useful. However, when such knowledge is put to use unconsciously, and is identified by a conscious person, then it becomes useful directly or indirectly. Therefore, I would say knowledge begins in self-identity which could lead to consciousness.
To understand consciousness, we must calm down our mind and go closer to our soul. This can be done by going inwards.
Today's society is fast -paced. There is too much speed. Due to this humans have lost their identity. Man is lost somewhere. An ordinary person is in a state of lower consciousness, absorbed in worldly activities and the senses.
But, to understand consciousness one should go inwards and attain a higher level of consciousness. If you maintain that higher level of consciousness or awareness in daily life, we can know how close we are to understanding consciousness.
For this you must have a sincere desire to practice meditation.
The body can be compared to a motor car. When the battery wears down, you have to recharge it in order to drive the car. If you charge up the used battery in your system through the practice of meditation, you will experience the presence of consciousness within yourself the whole day.
How close you are in understanding the consciousness depends on how close you are to your soul and how much charged you are.
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something "that it is like" to "have" or "be" it, and the executive control system of the mind..
Regards
Hi, Olufunbe,
Can you explain knowledge without consciousness. An interesting idea!
Is it, Khalid, all these things. You surely can be conscious without knowledge of self? Or can you?
To be conscious implies awareness of other things-but at what point does that involve knowledge of self? How does knowledge impinge on this arrangement-when it is separated from other things as either component or attachment?
Dear Stanley,
The answer to your question will depend on the metaphysical position you take whether consciousness is primary or whether matter is primary. Many scientists take the view that matter gives rise to consciousness and look for its seat in the brain. Whereas when one takes the position Life (Consciousness) gives rise to life, all knowledge arises out of Consciousness and true knowledge arises when we turn our I ego awareness inwards in search of the deeper Self.
Although not unsympathetic to Marxist ideas (his take on psychology is worth teaching on courses), they can be only one aspect of the construction of ideas. I have written at length also on the historical development of the mind and cognition, as against its natural properties.
Some languages have different verbs for knowing a fact and knowing a person. A cold machine is able to store, report and use facts. In this way it knows them. To know a person is expected to mean to understand them in a feeling way as well as factually. For this there must be real consciousness. You do not "start" from consciousness in the sense of being the smallest possible knowing of a person, but you do "start" from consciousness in the sense that to know them emotionally your consciousness must be involved, and that ultimately comes from (IMO) physics-level fundamental consciousness, a very elemental thing.
Is it not possible that machines exhibit at some point some kind of consciousness?
Machines as we know them can have only simulated consciousness. Future very different machines constructed to do the same things our brains do at the physics level can be genuinely conscious- sentient, with subjective experience, just like animals'.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching