Why are we conscious?

[The Void]

Why do we need to be conscious?
if we are stimuli based mechanical processes, why is there any need for consciousness of the process to present.
Can I ever know if you are conscious or not?
You may be just an unconscous robot acting on impulses, acting just how you are programmed to be.
Again does my consciousness really influence anything in me, or is it's only attribute is being conscious?
Again can I be sure, that then the stone is not conscious,
or this computer is not conscious?
Is there any outside appearance to prove the existence of consciousness?
A impulse based system dont need to have any consciousness,
and anyway, many of our actions are from unconscious side,
and even though there are what we call our conscious action,
is it really consciousness acted action,
or just consciousness of the action going on?
If we make a SAAI (super advanced AI) and it acts like humans and stuff,
does it necessarily means that the AI is conscious.
If a computer is programmed to say I am conscious, doesnt mean it is.
With advanced programming, it may become more complex than even humans,
but still can we say it is conscious?
Again, we cant also not say that it is not conscious,
because it can be,
consciousness may be just a by product of some mechanical processes.
But can we ever know.
I can percieve the consciousness, but it is a subjective property,
how can any external property prove that there is some consciousness in the being showing the properties.
It is inductive deduction.
I am conscious, this guy acts in complex ways like me, this guy responds to what I say, this guy talks to me and all, that, and can do the basics of what I do,
therefore this guy must be conscious too,
it operates on the basic premise, that consciousness is related to those type of acts.

 

[kora]

Fascinating questions yes. You will be maybe or maybe not interested in all this.

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=19534

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

 

[Ribald]

That was the rest of the world's 'hard problem of consciousness' thread, higs. It had nothing to do with The Void.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i suspect it's one of those social constructs

when we are sincerely unfamiliar with the phenomenon, we have become free

 

[The Void]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Yes it looks like I was talking about the philosophical zombie.
they say that it is logically incoherent,
but how can I even know that all other than me are not actually philosophical zombie,
or may be even I am, where the only difference is there is a consciousness of that
process.
The criticisms are based on biased beliefs that an idea need to be consciously
concieved to create an action,
but as I analyzed my own actions, I found them to need nothing,
infact even now, as I am writing, I am not really thinking, I am just mechanically writhing,
I am not consciously thinking it all up, it is just some superfast processing going on somewhere,
and all there is, is the consciousness of the superficial manifestion of the processes,
from nowhere little thoughts emerges, then manifests in big words while being typed.
So in the same way, non-conscious philosophical zombies may even be existing, near you.
how can anyone know?
Also I dont really follow the zombie arguments though,

Ok now ,,,after thinking it more,,,,,I think I understand the logic behind
i guess he is talking about two worlds being same working based on physicalism,
but in one world there is no consciousness, so consciousness must be beyond physicalism,

or something like that?

I dont really resonate with this types of logic, I dont think I understand it correctly though,

but I have problems with the things about both physicalism, and non-physicalism,

because what are they actually doing?

Matter is just a name given to stuff,

even in a dream, things can be touched, smelt, seen, but is that matter, or mental?

I dont think there is really any frame of referrence to distingush them,

mental may still be one aspect of physical,

just like scent, touch, and all that are different aspects of one thing,

we ourselves are over-complicated things, by over-conceptualizing, and over-classying,

 

[kora]

Yes it looks like I was talking about the philosophical zombie.
they say that it is logically incoherent,
but how can I even know that all other than me are not actually philosophical zombie,
or may be even I am, where the only difference is there is a consciousness of that
process.
The criticisms are based on biased beliefs that an idea need to be consciously
concieved to create an action,
but as I analyzed my own actions, I found them to need nothing,
infact even now, as I am writing, I am not really thinking, I am just mechanically writhing,
I am not consciously thinking it all up, it is just some superfast processing going on somewhere,
and all there is, is the consciousness of the superficial manifestion of the processes,
from nowhere little thoughts emerges, then manifests in big words while being typed.
So in the same way, non-conscious philosophical zombies may even be existing, near you.
how can anyone know?
Also I dont really follow the zombie arguments ,

Well I suppose the only way to find out whether or not someone was a philosophical zombie would be to talk to it about qualia and the experience of subjective consciousness, if they don't get it they're a zombie. Which could mean that cognisant is one (kidding) The whole point is the thought experiment in itself though, if you can logically Imagine it, then physicalism is refuted (apparently) Because it means that the reason for subjective experience lies in something else than materialism. It's all rather shaky though, but then again, anything that is not hard-core materialism is counter intuitive and shaky. Time will tell.

 

[Latte]

What is consciousness? Is it awareness? Is it awareness of being aware of things we are aware of?
Meta-awareness?

If our brains have the interpretive and sensory capacity to analyze and contextualize in every way we experience ourselves doing, what need is there to add something more to explain that we are aware unless we assume that we are not our brains? That we see from the perspective of being that analyzing and contextualizing entity. That we are not inside the process or that we emerge from the process or that we experience the process, but that we actually are the process, in a sense.

Perhaps most people's idea of consciousness and what the concept is generally meant to mean or entail presumes too much.

A sort of awareness variety on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument , where we keep thinking that something has to watch the watching and that something is us. Possibly an artifact of certain structures parts of us try to organize information into, making us seek answers to questions that assume reality must adhere to these structures, when actually those structures might not be capable of mirroring reality at that level because reality might not fit.

Before seeing model-divergent evidence I'll stick to the brain in regards to the "how" of consciousness, because the parameters of the idea of what the brain is and how it functions allows for it being capable of generating meta-awareness, and me as an experiential entity being the processes allows for "me" as a subjective continuous experience.

Well, at least in front of people or in discussions pertaining to truth. I'll dream of what I have not seen good arguments or evidence for inside myself for emotional nourishment.

The question of why is usually quite obfuscating when trying to get to the truth of something, because it presupposes a causal relationship/structure rather than more generally referring merely to coherent structure.

In regards to Qualia. Personally I see it as differentiation potential within set parameters. Binary also allows for a kind of qualia by this definition. More constrained parameters than binary allowing for other kinds of qualia within the overset of binary. Qualia not necessarily entailing meta-awarness or much awareness at all, but meta-awareness always entailing qualia.

In the brain, there are languages of differentiation and thus qualia, some being more general than others. If some of them were not more general than others in a way that envelops the parameters of others, the brain would be an entity with much more limited capacity for intra-cooperation, especially such that we experience as meta-awareness.

I'm not sure but if I skimmed posts in the other thread correctly, the general points of Cherry Cola's take on panpsychism and the no-metaphysics'ism espoused by TA & Cog would be congruent with this.

 

[The Void]

Well I suppose the only way to find out whether or not someone was a philosophical zombie would be to talk to it about qualia and the experience of subjective consciousness, if they don't get it they're a zombie.

If the p-zombie may be programmed to think that its a conscious being and say about subjective stuffs and experiences but without real consciousness of the understanding or consciousness of whatever going on and may also speaks all that stuff.

Is magnetic field, energy, gravity are all those matter, or products of matters what are they?
Science deals with them too, and I don't think materialists disbelieve in them,

but matter is just a term, consciousness may be a by product of matter, or evreything is a by product of consciousness or something else, but if consciousnessness is produced by matter, is consciousness matter or immaterial product of matter? It just comes down to a game of semantics.

What actually is matter? What makes matter matter?

 

[Cherry Cola]

What is the difference between thinking you are conscious and being conscious? It's no longer a zombie if it thinks because then it experiences.

What makes matter matter is the same thing that makes things matter to you or any other human, any other view violates Ocky's razor or constitutes magical thinking. Hence why nihilism is retarded, things just don't magically happen.

 

[The Void]

What is consciousness? Is it awareness? Is it awareness of being aware of things we are aware of?
Meta-awareness?

If our brains have the interpretive and sensory capacity to analyze and contextualize in every way we experience ourselves doing, what need is there to add something more to explain that we are aware unless we assume that we are not our brains? That we see from the perspective of being that analyzing and contextualizing entity. That we are not inside the process or that we emerge from the process or that we experience the process, but that we actually are the process, in a sense.

Perhaps most people's idea of consciousness and what the concept is generally meant to mean or entail presumes too much.

A sort of awareness variety on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument , where we keep thinking that something has to watch the watching and that something is us. Possibly an artifact of certain structures parts of us try to organize information into, making us seek answers to questions that assume reality must adhere to these structures, when actually those structures might not be capable of mirroring reality at that level because reality might not fit.

Before seeing model-divergent evidence I'll stick to the brain in regards to the "how" of consciousness, because the parameters of the idea of what the brain is and how it functions allows for it being capable of generating meta-awareness, and me as an experiential entity being the processes allows for "me" as a subjective continuous experience.

Well, at least in front of people or in discussions pertaining to truth. I'll dream of what I have not seen good arguments or evidence for inside myself for emotional nourishment.

The question of why is usually quite obfuscating when trying to get to the truth of something, because it presupposes a causal relationship/structure rather than more generally referring merely to coherent structure.

In regards to Qualia. Personally I see it as differentiation potential within set parameters. Binary also allows for a kind of qualia by this definition. More constrained parameters than binary allowing for other kinds of qualia within the overset of binary. Qualia not necessarily entailing meta-awarness or much awareness at all, but meta-awareness always entailing qualia.

In the brain, there are languages of differentiation and thus qualia, some being more general than others. If some of them were not more general than others in a way that envelops the parameters of others, the brain would be an entity with much more limited capacity for intra-cooperation, especially such that we experience as meta-awareness.

I'm not sure but if I skimmed posts in the other thread correctly, the general points of Cherry Cola's take on panpsychism and the no-metaphysics'ism espoused by TA & Cog would be congruent with this.

+1

 

[Cherry Cola]

Ta and Cog are the metaphysicians not me.

 

[The Void]

What is the difference between thinking you are conscious and being conscious? It's no longer a zombie if it thinks because then it experiences.

I was not talking about thinking in usual sense,
I just dont have better words.
like I walked to the balcony, but my mind was not thinking to go or do anything,
it was just some mechanical process,
thoughts sometimes just arise out of the void, like near being sleepy, it just appears, a mechanical process,

but thoughts does not become thoughts unless there is no consciousness,

but there still remains the processes without consciousness,

what you want to call these unconscious thoughts that are not really thoughts,

I dont know what words to use to describe what I am trying to describe :/

 

[The Void]

What makes matter matter is the same thing that makes things matter to you or any other human, any other view violates Ocky's razor or constitutes magical thinking. Hence why nihilism is retarded, things just don't magically happen.

I was not using the term matter in that statement as I use it in nothing matters,
I was using the term matter as in scientific matter,
what makes matter, 'matter'
I was using that statement like this,
what makes computer computer?
so the matter I was using was not a verb but the noun in both cases,

 

[Cherry Cola]

I know and it is the same thing still. What makes a computer a computer is the fact that they are phenomenologically primitive to the point in regards to phenomenology they hitherto resemble physical processes such as nebulas forming more than they do live animals. The morphology of the circuits by which they operate are created within and in likeness of the boundaries of a particular formulation of a closed system existing within one among many interconnected such systems in our brains.

Computers on the other hand, lack inter-connectivity in this sense, they are not organic. Their signals running through their circles only interact by proxy in accordance to the structure of the circuits. Thus these signals are wholly discrete, unable to form a whole, hence why computers are not sentient units but consist of numerous primitive ones, their phenomenological content being naught but numerous little signals sent. Simple physical processes. Or in a less accurate but perhaps more illustrative allegory: ants operating in an artificially created environment the tunnels of their nests being arranged like the circuits of a computer, could also constitute a functional computer. But this computer would not be sentient viewed as a discrete unit.

In any case, on this silly misunderstanding of what constitutes metaphysics in a way that relates to this threads mentioning of rules:

Chomsky has got it down, we operate by rules. The rules are essentially rituals by which we make sense of the world and instill a sense of control over it. Animals use rituals all the time, this is nothing unique to man. Rituals have plenty of evolutionary benefits.

Picture two bucks fighting. They start by measuring up one another. This has the benefit to see if there is any need for a fight to begin with. If there isn't both parties benefit from not fighting as they then preserve energy and do not risk injury. They both share a large amount of genes. Remember, genes are the basic components involved in evolution, not the dna compromising an individual of a species. Hence, unless two animals of the same species have a lot to gain from fighting one another they wont do it. If they did Darwin would've been wrong.

In any case let's say the bucks end up fighting, they will both lower their heads before they engage on another, despite the fact that a surprise attack from one part could kill the other animal. They will typically pause their fight every now and then if it drags out, and oftentimes they will do so even if it doesn't. This allows them to scan the environment, thus they avoid the risk of being ambushed. When they do that they move their heads sideways to cover all 360 degrees. Here again we have a golden opportunity for either buck to stick his antlers into the others throat or topple and proceed to disembowel the other. Yet this doesn't happen. It would not benefit the species as whole and hence not the genes either. For the same reason the deers have antlers instead of horns pointing forwards with which they could motherfucking impale and kill predators easily. Those would rob the animals of a means to compete without killing one another. Rituals, ie law, rules, norms whatever, are built into old primitive parts of our brains. The newer parts can analyze ritualistic behavior owing to their sophistication and our accumulation of knowledge following the dawn of agriculture. But despite the fact that we can analyze these rituals we still perceive them as inherently meaningful, inherent in the very being of the world. ISTJs more than other types for sure, but no one is immune to this. The deers have no clue why they do these things, they just do because that's what you do and that's the way the world is. They still experience doing it however, they are not zombies by any means, their world is inherently meaningful. The same goes for the newer parts of our brains, there is no reason why they would not operate by rules and rituals either, in fact they do. Deductive logic, mathematics, language etc etc are all prime examples of this. We just don't experience these things as if though they were rituals, we experience them as though they simple are and that's it.

Only meta-analyzing them is much more difficult, in fact it is often seen as violating the rules. Hence why Cog and Ta try to paint me out as someone who dwells into pointless metaphysics, when what I do is subject human thought and perception to meta-analyzation. They keep on deeming this things as "merely subjective" when in fact its purpose is to transcend subjectivity as far as is possible given the limit of our current cognition.

This is what happens when you don't have much experience with philosophy, anthropology and linguistics, and it is sad to behold. They fight me like to bucks, and they think me an abomination for breaking the rules, rules which simply are. Thus they are trapped in one metaphysical incarnation of the world, blissfully unaware of it is. Blissfully indeed, yet it is a sad thing to behold.

Brontosaurie expressed something quite similar to what I'm saying but using few words. Analyze consciousness by its instrumentality and it is not so puzzling, do not distinguish the instrumentality of human consciousness from the rest of the world for no reason other than that it feels right intuitively (that's the way the world appears to us, inherently meaningful and at the same time confined and shaped by the same meaning, just as with the fighting bucks) and it too is less puzzling.

Consider the origin of life a complicated molecule as it is, a solid unit of will trapped in its own morphology it accumulates and structures matter simply by the fact that it remains in a world that is ever-changing. A rock in a river flowing towards entropy, eventually it will erode and vanish reduced to tiny specks of rock flowing with the river towards its endpoint: the heat death. Before it does that however it will cause the part of the stream around it to flow in a pattern more complex than if it were not there. Hence making it more complicated, hence temporarily being counter-entropic, as entropy is the reduction of complexity towards uniformity.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Oh, and on the importance of actually understanding human thinking: I want to mention that it is far easier and also far more pointless to condemn and attempt to prevent wars as well as other forms of needless suffering by trying to prevent wars, rather than by trying to understand what is the root cause of them and educating people on that. A primitive approach based on wishful thinking and naivety, one that would be criticized if it were applied to something else such as psychology or economics.

Yet no one realizes the need for doing so despite the fact that the means for doing it have been around for well over 100 years in this supposedly civilized society of people (not animals, no not at all!). We are still beasts who fight like bucks over some imagined prize which has an endless amount of manifestations which are; nonetheless, all the same when considered phenomenologically without the ornamentations which render them specific. Though some form of ornamentation is probably necessary in every possible rendering. And we don't question this, because we intuitively sense that something is at risk when we do, and indeed something is, our grandiose picture of ourselves which we have because we are animals, not because of our relative sophistication as it is an instrument sprung from evolution in servitude of evolution. Everyone has that little ISTJ devil chanting into one of their ears. The angel would be self honesty. But it is typically absent. Ugh.

Civilization has already violated the principles of evolution, we have now created a milieu which we are not built to survive in, a caricature of sorts. Hence the acute need.

 

[Cognisant]

One day there will be a great social debate over whether AIs are people or not, on one side will be the religious and the conservative, on the other will be the young, idealistic and progressive minded.

The outcome is inevitable and history will remember the religious/conservative people as bigots, indeed you may even live to see your grandchildren being told to ignore you because you're old and you don't know any better.

I can wait

 

[Cherry Cola]

One day Cognisant will exit Platos cave. No actually zero day sorry.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

consciousness gives you control

so we can act not like programmed robots, but we can change, adapt

also, we can create, culture, science, technology - consciousness can improve everything

but not inteligence, the more someone is conscious, the less inteligent he is

consciousness is a devourer of energy

 

[Cherry Cola]

What? That makes no sense. It sounds like you've confused consciousness with being conscious of things. Animals are also consciousness and many of them are totally inept when it comes to changing and adapting. Intelligence is of more relevance, though apparently you think that intelligence runs counter to consciousness.

I think that if we had a way of consistently quantifying consciousness so that we could speak of consciousness in terms of less and more, then we'd find that it correlated with intelligence.

I would be interested in hearing more on why you do not think so. How does consciousness devour energy? I am not particularly looking to criticize, I am just curious and would appreciate another perspective on the matter, especially one that differs from mine.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

My thoughts are result of reading books:
Blindsight, Peter Watts, sci-fi and
Self comes to mind, Antonio Damasio, neuroscience book

Both books say that unconsciousness do everything better than consciousness, and it's true, there are some researches. So if you can do something, that require inteligence or thinking, and unconsciousness you can do this better, this shows that consciousness blocks our mind. Also, conscious is created in our mind, so it devour place and energy, what could be spend on inteligence.

But Damasio, unlike Watts, says that conscious is a very powerful tool, that help do something hard and painful now, to get something good in future, or to avoid more dangerous, or more painful situation.

Watts claims, that consciousness can be something unuseful, and created unconsciousness aliens, that are much more inteligent than humans. He very good shows, that there are no correlations between consciousness and inteligence.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Couldn't intelligence and consciousness correlate for humans and similar forms of life though?

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Ah, forgot to say: when I say consciousness, mainly I think about the highest "human consciousness".

and:

Couldn't intelligence and consciousness correlate for humans and similar forms of life though?

There are absolute different matters, but conscious thinking blocks inteligence, as I said and conscious thinking require additional energy. There are correlations.

 

[Grayman]

One day there will be a great social debate over whether AIs are people or not, on one side will be the religious and the conservative, on the other will be the young, idealistic and progressive minded.

Actually the debate is fairly straight foward. People is defined as "Human beings". since AI is not going to be human... case closed.

 

[Josteen]

In my understanding, being conscious is to be fully aware or of one's own existence and being capable to experience and recall things that changes the way one feel, think and act towards what was presented to it at that time.
I do agree with your point that we can't justify something or someone to be non conscious or conscious because we have no means of knowing whether it was aware of its own existence unless we become them and truly experience what they/it felt.
For example I can see what my pet dog is doing right now and I know when he was hungry or when he needs to be taken outside for a walk, but I don't know what he feels when I took him for a walk or feed him when he's hungry , I can only assume that he's happy the way I would feel when I got what I wanted, but it was all assumption and what I think he feels at that moment, obviously the way that man interprets their happiness is different from a dog, so with that I don't even know a thing about how he feels about his own existence.
Whether he was just a glorified organization of atoms with the drive to only satisfy what I call as it's own reward system or he 's truly conscious (in my concept of consciousness)
But I can and justify in my context that I am conscious since I am aware of what I am aware of and experience what I experience and that I was conscious since the first time I started remembering what happened and how I can recall my memory when making decision, therefore I am conscious

Forgive me for the long read

 

[The Void]

I know and it is the same thing still. What makes a computer a computer is the fact that they are phenomenologically primitive to the point in regards to phenomenology they hitherto resemble physical processes such as nebulas forming more than they do live animals. The morphology of the circuits by which they operate are created within and in likeness of the boundaries of a particular formulation of a closed system existing within one among many interconnected such systems in our brains.

I was saying it in more of a sense of semantics.
What is it that distinguishes matter as matter.
I was actually trying to make a point,
which you already know, since I saw you stating that somewhere,
The rest of the post I dont understand the context (warning I dont remember the OP :P) based on which it is presented,
I am more or less neutral about this.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I was saying it in more of a sense of semantics.
What is it that distinguishes matter as matter.
I was actually trying to make a point,
which you already know, since I saw you stating that somewhere,
The rest of the post I dont understand the context (warning I dont remember the OP :P) based on which it is presented,
I am more or less neutral about this.

Ah ok. Well the context was that Chomsky was mentioned in the homunculus wiki article, I should've been more clear about that, especially considering the length of the post lol.

 

[The Void]

My thoughts are result of reading books:
Blindsight, Peter Watts, sci-fi and
Self comes to mind, Antonio Damasio, neuroscience book

Both books say that unconsciousness do everything better than consciousness, and it's true, there are some researches. So if you can do something, that require inteligence or thinking, and unconsciousness you can do this better, this shows that consciousness blocks our mind. Also, conscious is created in our mind, so it devour place and energy, what could be spend on inteligence.

But Damasio, unlike Watts, says that conscious is a very powerful tool, that help do something hard and painful now, to get something good in future, or to avoid more dangerous, or more painful situation.

Watts claims, that consciousness can be something unuseful, and created unconsciousness aliens, that are much more inteligent than humans. He very good shows, that there are no correlations between consciousness and inteligence.

Well apparently so, consciousness is most probably not merely simply consciousness,
but something more,
like anger can be unconscious spontaneous reaction,
and then after anger and shown and all, the mind later backward rationalize to justify irrational behaviours,
but putting consciousness on this behaviour can change it.
my actions may depend on my level of consciousness,
I will say both unconsciousness and consciousness have its own place,
unconscious actions, heart beat, and stuff, can be better without consciousness,
and while doing something, while getting lost in the unconscious flow, things ca
n get better, but consciousness too can be useful, to mold, the persona,
shape it, self-actualize, to change unconscious programmed actions,
to become something more than programming, something more immune to external conditionings,
but still it is how it appears to be, I am not really sure, if it all can be co-related.

 

[The Void]

The void grows bigger, I unlearned even more,
I cant endure this ever decreasing knowledge,

 

[John_Mann]

Read about panpsychism and eliminative materialism.

 

[Hawkeye]

The void grows bigger, I unlearned even more,
I cant endure this ever decreasing knowledge,

It's I've unlearnt...

unlearned is an adjective

The void has made you even more of an unlearned soul.

 

[The Void]

It's I've unlearnt...

unlearned is an adjective

http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-unlearned.html
unlearned can be used as a verb in simple past form,
you are converting it to PP (past perfect) by putting a have,
but in simple past tense both unlearnt and unlearned works.

 

[Hawkeye]

http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-unlearned.html
unlearned can be used as a verb in simple past form,
you are converting it to PP (past perfect) by putting a have,
but in simple past tense both unlearnt and unlearned works.

Urgh... Americanisms

Thru for through
Check for cheque
dreamed for dreamt
burned for burnt
color for colour
flavor for flavour
(h)erb for herb

Madness.

Why is it not sleeped for slept America? Hmm? HMMMMMM????

btw, your statement is referring to the present so unlearned is still wrong in the context you are using it in. (past simple) ^^

Also, have is present perfect, not past perfect. Perhaps you are thinking of had?


As for the topic, the question of why we are conscious does not interest me. I find the question of how to be more interesting.

 

[The Void]

Urgh... Americanisms

Thru for through
Check for cheque
dreamed for dreamt
burned for burnt
color for colour
flavor for flavour
(h)erb for herb

Madness.

Why is it not sleeped for slept America? Hmm? HMMMMMM????

btw, your statement is referring to the present so unlearned is still wrong in the context you are using it in. (past simple) ^^

Also, have is present perfect, not past perfect. Perhaps you are thinking of had?


As for the topic, the question of why we are conscious does not interest me. I find the question of how to be more interesting.

the question was not really a real question, it was to make a certain point,
but I intended to use it as past simple, actually,

 

[Hawkeye]

the question was not really a real question, it was to make a certain point,
but I intended to use it as past simple, actually,

In that case, you can't use grows.

I think what you meant to say was:

The void grows bigger; I unlearn even more and more. I can't endure this ever decreasing knowledge.

 

[The Void]

In that case, you can't use grows.

I think what you meant to say was:

it was more like past cause -> unlearning -> present effect -> void grows,

 

[Hawkeye]

it was more like past cause -> unlearning -> present effect -> void grows,

In which case... present perfect is the correct tense you are after.

 

[The Void]

In which case... present perfect is the correct tense you are after.

I guess so....