William Keller said:
Very interesting indeed, thank you.
This, however, means that there is no true consciousness. There are only, let's say, "manufactured" truths: is anything we have ever thought really true? Probably not.
Which leads me to my former thoughts: are we in a position to manufacture our own consciousness? To pick a truth that's "true" for us? That would mean there already are truths, or fragments of truths, details and evidence supporting a certain theory. To put it quite simply, who put those there? Were they planted by a force like a "creator" (nothing like a creator, really) or a collective realization (universal consciousness)? Were they merely created by us to fill nonexistent gaps?
In order to become clear, I am not suggesting that God created us. I am an atheist, and not a philosopher. I am just looking to have an interesting conversation.
Well, I did mention that not everyone would like it. Still, herein lies a bit of the problem in this conversation: the definition of 'truth'. If we were talking empiricism, that wouldn't be an issue, but since it's existentialism, a truth relating to purpose of consciousness need not actually be 'true'.
However, as far as metaphysics is concerned, there's little I can add, as I lean decidedly towards ontology which deals with existence on a scale not covered by the individual. The conscious entity of a species, say, is easily explained through behavioural evolution. But, that's not your question.
Anyway, you could think of it like a cynic. Our position within the universe is not the universe's priority, hence we are here to cater to the needs and wants of nature, and not the other way around (basically, our purpose is to ensure the perpetuity of that which we are part i.e. the natural world). It works for some, but it is, objectively, insufficient.
Unfortunately, a lot of Hellenic philosophies (Cyrenaicism, Epicureanism, Aristotlianism etc. and indeed cynicism) rely on the acceptance of consciousness to justify purpose. Subsequent classical/enlightenment era philosophies deal primarily with interpersonal action, i.e. moral and ethical issues, but once again assumes the confirmation of conscious mind.
At its simplest, utilitarianism is probably the easiest to accept, but the reduction of human response to 'pain & pleasure' is again presumptive of conscious desire. Alternatively, you could screw the whole thing and subscribe to absurdism, though to be honest, I don't really get it.
The problem is similar to the chicken and egg question of which came first: consciousness (or rather, sentience); or desire? Because without one, the other is meaningless, even though both require justification to be able to validate 'purpose'. And even when this can be done, the 'meaning of life' can only be explained on individual levels by a coherent argument that is heavily dependent on context. Say for the sake of argument, you find meaning in your life (job, family etc.), this cannot be applied to 'life in general' because the transposition from 'meaning in life' to 'meaning of life' is impossible in this case.
Hence, sourcing consciousness requires what Kierkegaard coined as a 'leap to faith' which in this case, is the acknowledgement of the chaos and absurdity that is life. You, my friend, are of such a 'quality' that you require explanation of consciousness using pure logos without prior assumption beyond the physical and empirical. To be able to accept the idea, the 'leap' must be taken, the leap being understanding that an assumption needs to be made. While this does not apply to all concepts, this is one of those ones in which it is needed.
Sorry...
