Essay 8-Object and Conscious Experience

Introduction

In essay 6, we have established the existence of individual objects in complement to the existence of reality. We prove it using the conscious experience, that the experience of any object is sufficient proof for the absolute existence of that object. In essay 7, we have clarified the definition of object as a unique and limited part of reality. However, the question from essay 6 remains, that is whether the object and the experience are identical or not. As such, this essay will have the purpose of answering the question, “Is the object and the experience identical or not?”

Phenomenon as Object

The conscious experience or phenomenon can be treated as an object as it fulfils all the criteria of an object. The phenomenon exists as we can experience it and access it directly, thus it is a part of reality as the set of all existence. A phenomenon is certainly unique and limited, we can differentiate between one phenomenon and another and that we can see the bounds for each phenomenon, where it begins and where it ends. Therefore, a phenomenon is an object as well.

As such, when we say that, “If we consciously experience an object, the object exists,” the object might refer to the object of the phenomenon. However, it tells us nothing about whether the phenomenon and the object behind it are separate or not. The statement can mean that the experience of any object proves the existence of that experience, or it can mean that the experience of any object proves the existence of a separate object. Therefore, the question to be answered presents itself.

Object and Conscious Experience

As has been done in essay 4, we shall first determine the method of answering the question. Similar to essay 4, we will analyse the possible answers to this question to determine which answer is the truth. There are 2 possible answers, yes or no. Yes means the object and the experience are one single object and are identical. No means the object and the experience are separate and not identical.

However, it is insufficient to simply analyse the possible answers, it is also necessary to synthesize the answers with the actual phenomenal reality. This is because we have established the conscious experience as a source of proof and as such a source of truth. Therefore, we must use the phenomenon to obtain a clearer truth in combination with the answers. To be more accurate, the phenomenon is used to compare the answers to reality and determine which answer is the correct one.

The phenomenal reality that we have will also be essential in actually discovering the truth. This reality is that phenomena has a beginning and end, there are times where we experience an object X and there are times where we do not experience X.  If the reality of our experience is that there is no beginning and end to experience, there would be no difference of experience between the answer of yes or no. In such eternal condition, both possibilities are equally possible as there are no means of discerning between the two.

The actual reality then will aid in discerning the possibilities, and how it will aid shall be revealed in the actual analysis of the possibilities. As a sidenote to this essay, the order of analysis will be reversed from the Indonesian version. In the Indonesian version I analysed yes then no, this is because of the way the question is written. Here I seem to have accidentally written the question the other way around, as such to achieve the effect of the essay I must analyse no first then yes.

As written, the first possibility is no, it means that the object and the phenomenon are 2 different and separate but related objects, they are not identical. Meanwhile, the phenomenal reality is that there is a beginning and an end to phenomenon. The implication of a no is that objects do not cease to exist as the experience ceases to be, rather the object enters or exits the region of phenomena. It can also remain to exist outside of the phenomena, it is not dependent on it. However, that is the limits of our analysis for no, we must now move on to the analysis of yes.

Yes means that the object and the phenomenon are one identical object. The implication in relation to the phenomenal reality is that when the phenomenon ceases, the object ceases as well as the phenomenon is the object, there is nothing else. It is here that further analysis will show through proof by contradiction that the object and the experience are indeed separate objects.

As the phenomenon can begin and end, we will analyse both situations. If a phenomenon ends and the object ends with it, then there is not much problem as we can say that it is part of the object’s programming to end. The real problem arises when the phenomenon begins, that is when we begin to ask, what causes the phenomenon to begin? There are 3 possible answers, an object outside of experience, nothingness, or by an object within experience.

The first answer already implies the separate existence of an object from conscious experience and as such will not do much to support the answer. If we say nothingness is the cause, then we say nothingness has a capacity to produce objects. This capacity exists outside of conscious experience in the beginning, and as such it supports that there is a separate existence outside of conscious experience.

However, it is true that if we say that the capacity is already in our awareness beforehand, then the cause is already within the conscious experience and so we arrive at the third possible cause of existence. If an internal object is the cause of the object’s emergence, then we say that it has a property or capacity to cause the object’s existence. Let us illustrate this with labelled objects, A as the cause and B as the new object.

If A is the cause, such that A has the capacity of causing B’s existence, then we must ask, is that capacity within our awareness or not? If we are aware of A’s capacity to produce B, then we are actually already aware of B and thus B has existed all along. However, this is not the actual phenomenal reality, it is often that we are not aware of A’s capacity to produce B and thus we are not aware of B. As such part of A, that is its capacity to produce B, is outside of conscious experience but exists nonetheless.

Let us try to modify this proof a bit. Imagine that we do not know that A can produce B but we know that A can produce a random object. We also know that there is no limit to the category of objects A can produce. However, observe this implication, knowing that A can produce a random object implies that we know the existence of multiple random objects already, even if we have never thought of it before. As such, B indirectly already exists as we must presume its mental existence first.

The actual phenomenal reality is that B has never entered our experience at all, and that we may know that A has the capacity to produce some object but it is not B because we have not imagined B at all in the first place. Therefore B, despite being part of A, along with the capacity of A to insert B into conscious experience, remains outside of conscious experience and so the proof remains.

We can apply the proof to the end of phenomenon as well. Remember that if a phenomenon ends, that means it has the capacity to end. However, imagine that at first, we do not know that it will end, then it ends. It means that does have the capacity to end since the beginning, however, we do not know of it. It means the capacity has existed before we experienced it and is therefore separate from conscious experience. With all of the proofs, we can conclude that the correct answer is no, that, “The object and the conscious experience are 2 separate objects.”

Conclusion

With the above explanations, we obtain a single philosophical statement that is, “The object and the conscious experience are 2 separate objects.” In the next essay we will discuss a topic related to the complexity of each object that is property. While not directly related to the topic of the current essay, the discussion of property will be fundamental to the construction of other philosophical essays. For now, this essay is declared to be done.

This essay corresponds to the Indonesian version.