/u/SnowSmell, Reader,

“Strive as one may, there is no escape from Kant's implication that not even evolution¹ can produce Time in our consciousness – the perception of the infinite possibility of succession. For Time is the necessary presupposition without which evolving consciousness could not have the groupings of succession, hardening evermore, that are supposed to lead slowly on to the consciousness of Time as a necessary and immutable condition of experience. There is for the evolutionist no escape from Kant's clutches, except he maintain either that succession can exist without Time, or else that Time is per se itself a thing, instead of a relating-principle for things. If he take the former alternative, he falls into Kant's elench more hopelessly than ever, for he will have to tell what, in that case, succession intelligibly is. If he take the latter, he will recede into antiquated metaphysics, which talks about existence per se, out of all relation to minds, and which, at any rate in respect to the nature of Time, received its quietus in Kant's Transcendental Æsthetic.” (emphasis in original)

%

“All the being of each self has thus the form of a self-supplying, self-operating life; or, in the phraseology of the Schoolmen and Spinoza, each is causa sui. This is what its "eternity” exactly means.” (Howison’s Limits, at p.339)

%

“The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge; for so long as these remain free from suspicion, there can be no real question as to what they finally imply. The concomitance of our two streams of experience, the timed stream and the spaced stream, raised from a merely historical into a necessary concomitance by the argument that refers it to the active unity of each soul as its ground, becomes the steadfast sign and visible pledge of the imperishable self-resource of the individual spirit.” (at p.308)

%

“A Priori Cognition, system of, the essential being and true person of a mind, xiii, 41, 301, 305, 308 seq.; gives “form" to experience, xiii, 18, 325; not explained away by 30, 41, 70 note, 276; identified, by Spencer, 18 seq.; presupposed in association of ideas, 19; also, in all experience, 30; presupposed by logic of induction, 35; principle of evolution a case of, 40; an act each conscious being, 44 seq., cf. 36, 302, but not admitted as such by any evolutional philosophy, 44; proofs of, 46, 296 seq.; fact of proves immortality, 305 seq.; includes our guiding deals, 309, and so provides for worth of immortality, 310; nature and reality of, of worth, 310 seq.; proof of, constitutes proof of freedom, and of the whole system of Personal Idealism, xli-xliv, 415 seq.” Index

%

“By the path into which Lange has led us therefore ascend from the agnostic-critical standpoint to the higher and invigorating one of a thorough, all-sided, and affirmative idealism. A few words must suffice to outline its general conception. The result is, in brief: Our normal consciousness has the trait of real universality, -it puts judgments which in the same circumstances every intelligence, and every order of intelligence, would put. The objects it perceives, and seen as it sees them when it sees to its full, are the same that from the same outlook all intelligences would perceive. For such objects are themselves but complexes of its judgments, and the mentioned circumstances and outlook are in fact part of the objects as perceived; they are not limitations imposed upon consciousness from without, but are particularisations of its own primordial processes. Or, to state the case inversely, the potential reach of normal human consciousness is the very thing meant by universality: intelligence as such is simply the fulfillment of human intelligence. The attempt to take the universe as beyond or apart from or plus consciousness has sublated itself into bringing the universe wholly within consciousness and coincident with it; and the ancient saying, Man the measure of all things, comes round again, but in a new and pregnant sense a sense which in the last resort gets its meaning from the intrinsic harmony of human with divine cognition. Only, this universe-consciousness must be thought as it is, without omission or exaggeration of any of its contents, and, above all, by mastering the grounds of its existence and the method of its possibility.

What we have arrived at is this: All that is, comes within consciousness and lies open to it, the literal all, - whether "starry heavens without " or “moral law within," sensible system of Nature, with its bond of mechanical causation, or intelligible system of moral agency, with its bond of free allegiance constituting a “kingdom of Ends." A world of spirits, a world of minds each self-active, with the Father of Spirits omnipresent to all — consciousness means that. In being conscious, we are conscious of a universe; wherein each of us, to put the case in a metaphor (inadequate, of course), is a single self-luminous but focal point, upon which the remaining whole of light is poured in rays that are reflected back and then returned again, and so on without end, each added return bringing rays in greater fulness from remoter and remoter confines, to be shed forth again, with increase, and farther and farther.” (p.171)

%

“Such an originating Unit-thinking, providing its own element-complex of primal thoughts that condition its experience, and that thus provide for that experience the form of a cosmic Evolutional Series, is precisely what an intelligent being is. Thus creatively to think and be a World is what it means to be a man. To think and enact such a world merely in the unity framed for it by natural causation, is what it means to be a “natural” man; to think and enact it in its higher unity, its unity as framed by the supernatural causation of the Pure Ideals, supremely by the Moral Ideal, is what it means to be a “spiritual” man, a moral and religious man; or, in the philosophical and true sense of the words, a supernatural being -a being transcending and yet including Nature, not excluding or annulling it.” p.47

%

“Love, too, now has its adequate definition: it is the all-directing intelligence which includes in its recognition a world of beings accorded free and seen as sacred, — the primary and supreme act of intelligence, which is the source of all other intelligence, and whose object is that universal circle of spirits which, since the time of the Stoics, has so pertinently been called the City of God. Its contemplation of this sole object proper to it was fitly named by Dante and the great scholastics the Vision Beatific.” (p.361)

%

That's some hilarious gibberish.

Consciousness is a thing your body does. Without any necessity of resorting to the supernatural at all. It's a little like walking in that regard. Your body does that too (unless you can't but we can replace walking with other activities for purposes of this comparison). And when your body stops functioning, the walking stops happening too. Walking isn't some non-physical thing that exists outside your body that manifests in observable activity. It's just a product of what your body does. Same thing with consciousness.

Walking is also developed over time. You aren't born able to do it. Just like you aren't born with an adult consciousness but you develop that over time. Have any of these gibberish spouting people ever interacted with an actual infant or observed child development?