I Think I Am, Therefore I Am.. Not Necessarily

Philosopher John Searle addresses consciousness as a biological phenomenon

Chasing Our Own TailsThe statement "I think, therefore I am" could be said to be awareness of oneself. Awareness is nothing more then a product of consciousness. Since without consciousness (in a unconscious state) there can be no such self awareness it can be said we don't exist unto ourselves under these conditions. However a person outside of our self is still consciously aware of our being while we are lay in a state of unconscious. So this doesn't mean that we don't exist, right? But where do we exist? In their consciousness not in our own under these conditions. So now we've become dependant on someone other then ourselves or what we call 'collective consciousness" for our continued existence.

Let's Take This All The Way To The TopIn the beginning there could exist no self awareness nor consciousness within the creator since both are products of biological conditions (humans). In order to bring about conscious awareness the creator (God) would have to first create humans. However in order to do that the creator would have to first develop a plan. A plan which of course would require self awareness that it/she/he existed in the first place. All which at first seems could only come about after the creation of humans, not before. Seems we're in a paradoxical catch-22 situation, no?

What Came 1st Can't Be Lesser Then What Came AfterScripture tells us the eye cannot see it's own self. Therefore it follows conscious awareness only exist as a reflection. That makes this "I think, therefore I am" nothing more then a reflection of something far larger going that cannot not possibly be understood by the human mind. If the only tool we have is our mind and it is operating within itself, it cannot possibly hope to understand what's truly going on through intellectual musings within it's own limited perimeters.. Back to that old catch 22 again, eh?

It is said everything that exist lay within all things that don't. The latter being far greater. Some lean on faith for what they cannot understand. Some simply block out anything they don't understand or care to think about. Still others make up things and declare them truths for what they can't comprehend. Each are much like the unconscious person I mentioned above.

There is yet another way to approach this (since no one can understand through one's human faculties). For the sake of definition I will call it 'taking a stance'. If one simply takes a stance (position) that the universe (and all the people in it both good and evil) is what it is and accepts that, one becomes more attune (one with it). Some religious philosophers called it surrendering to 'God's Will'. I'd rather think of it as leaving one's ego behind. Another way of saying it is 'going with the flow'.

All Our Troubles Begin With the 'Ego'
You Can't Beat The System

The human 'ego' tries to beguile us into thinking we are lazy, surrendering or uncaring when we resist our inclinations to 'change the world'. Whenever human reasoning gives into the temptation to change the world, what results is conflict with others. Things like wars and social bickering with those who's minds will never adapt to our own views no matter how much we argue. Simply put our world and the universe is what it is. Accept the world for what it is or die trying to make it what we think it should be. Either way the world will be much the same way it was when we came into it as it will be when we leave it.

The short and long of it is, enjoy the ride while it last. Whoever or whatever the creator is/was or what ever evolves is larger then we who are only temporary reflections of that. To do otherwise would be like a shadow (reflection in a mirror) trying to outwit that which is standing before it.