Is the only way we know that consciousness exists the result of its contrast to unconsciousness?

There can't ever be NOTHING if there is something

The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.

Well, I say then, if science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle.

Yet in spite of the fact that no one has experienced a “contrast” to consciousness, I don’t think anyone would argue that consciousness can’t be experienced.

We fall asleep every night and we wake up in the morning.
Since many hours have lapsed since we were last conscious we can certainly deduce that we were indeed unconscious.

For far longer than humans have been around, sleep has provided a great contrast to consciousness.

So you are right no one would claim to argue that consciousness can't be experienced, but everyone also has a reference for what it means to be unconscious. If there were no unconscious reference then we would not know we were conscious because there would be no other state but conscious.

Question: Can anyone thing of a conscious being (on earth) that doesn't have an unconscious state to contrast with? I am aware of a few cases of humans who lost the need to sleep, but they still experienced unconsciousness before hand.

http://www.mindupdate.co...ky-few-who-dont-need-it/

I’m not saying that we don’t regularly become unconscious – that’s obvious. What I’m trying to get across is that we don’t – and can’t – experience unconsciousness.

Dreamless sleep is not experienced. Sleep with dreams is a conscious experience.

As you said, we deduce the existence of unconsciousness by examining time gaps, observing others, etc., but unconsciousness remains a concept – an intellectual idea or abstraction. In the same sense, “nothing” can’t ever be experienced. It is an intellectual concept.

How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside. That is what we mean when we say that they define each other and that if one exists, they must both exist.

Btw some buddusts do talk about maintaining awareness in deep sleep. They claim that every night we enter the clear light of the void...

Nothing is nothing, it is as easy as a concept as non-existent in physical reality and our experience of it.

Can you show me nothing?

We only say we are conscious because we know there to be an unconscious state.
I think consciousness and unconsciousness actually work perfectly in this duality description.

Of course this is all just fun philosophical semantics and we all have to get back to the regular world of duality, but it is fun non the less.

gibran2 I completely agree with you that the potential to create alone makes "nothing" into "something", and actually I agree with pretty much everything you write here on the nexus, so I have a hell of a lot of respect for you...

But this is probably the first time I've seen you say something which I wanted to comment on:


It IS actually a question of human logic, because everytime humans debate about something all they have is human logic. Whenever someone opens their mouth or writes some text, we're dealing with human logic. And that is a simple fact. And because I'm a human too, the fact that I say it's a fact doesn't really mean anything, because it arises from my human logic. So whenever someone mentions the word "fact", it's really a subjective fact, not an objective fact. (sometimes they're really skillfully disguised as objective facts, so be vigilant..)

So to get back on the original topic with my human logic, when you have a concept like "nothing" and then you compare it to a concept like "0", you're already making a huge leap, because mathematics is a human invention in which 0 is just a tool to imply a lack of quantity. When you're talking about an absolute "nothing", it's .. well it's the biggest irony in the human language because it can't be talked about without making it into a "something". Like, here's my best attempt to talk about "nothing" and it goes like this: " " .. But even that was something, so it's impossible to talk or think about *that thing* without assigning it into a concept like "nothing", and a concept is "something".

The difference of 0 and "nothing" is the same as ∞ and "infinity", although there doesn't appear to be a difference at first, the point is that 0 and ∞ (and everything in between) were created as superficial tools for humans to play around with, but when you use the actual words like "nothing" and "infinity" it usually means that you really want to get to the bottom of their meanings. Which is impossible in this human form.

So you can't just calculate the meaning of life out of a human invention like mathematics or logic, but you can use it as a clever way to demonstrate things when you want to talk about your perspective on the human experience, which was exactly what Alan Watts was doing in the quotes of the OP.

And, to answer the question "Something from nothing?", the answer is: "I don't know, and neither do you, but it's fun to talk about it."

the only time the term nothing applies is when there was once something that isnt there anymore. Like someones life.

I determine the boundary of myself by observing which objects are not-me. Defining a thing or concept means specifying a boundary around it, the outside of the boundary corresponding to the anti-definition. "Nothing" is defined in defining "something". In essence, a definition is a boundary between two concepts. You can't define a boundary around what is meant by "something" without outlining what is meant by "nothing". How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside. That is what we mean when we say that they define each other and that if one exists, they must both exist. The concept of nothing shouldn't be any more difficult than no-money or no-apples....
Also, it seems to me that in claiming that nothing does not exist you assume that nothing exists. If nothing exists, it is something. If it does not exist, it is nothing, and thus nothing exists. Saying that nothing exists may be a paradox, but saying that it does not exist is also a paradox. At least it seems that way to me.

Nothing is a concept that can only exist relative to Something.
Something is a concept that can only exist relative to Nothing.

The only thing that matters is perception.

How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside.

..nothing over there, something over here..

that is logically possible

to say 'nothing does not exists' is illogical IMO..