Are there philosophers who argue for a close connection between consciousness and existence?

Question

(I'm not entirely satisfied with this question because I can't quite express it clearly, but a personal experience has moved me to ask it. I know it may be too vague or general.)

The consciousness my question is about is the "controversial" consciousness that is felt "from the inside", the first person viewpoint, the what-it's-like-to-be-something, that which gives rise to the hard problem, that thin ethereal quality that would distinguish us from an otherwise indiscernible zombie. My question is not about consciousness as a scientific phenomenon measured and quantified by neuroscience, or individual mental states.

Are there philosophers who argue that there is a close connection (maybe even an identification) between being conscious and existing? I don't mean that only we exist, because only we are conscious; I mean that other things (rocks, tables, particles) definitely do exist, and so they too must have consciousness (but obviously they don't have nervous systems, brains, and memories, so their consciousness would be radically phenomenologically different than ours). Or, that consciousness is the "stuff" reality is made out of, the stuff which takes on forms and properties and structural relations, but when stripped of these, the matter "underneath" is bare consciousness?

I have heard of a few theories that might fit this description:

1. There is panpsychism/panexperientialism in contemporary philosophy of mind. Though I believe, to panpsychists/panexperientialists, the relationship between consciousness and existence is a contingent one since they typically believe that zombies are possible. I think I'm interested in a necessary relation between the two (I'm not sure though).
2. There is Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived". Though strictly speaking, the thing being perceived needn't be conscious.
3. I don't know much about this, but based on some conversations I've had with a Hindu mystic, I think Hindu philosophy might say something like this. That through meditation, one can experience a state of pure consciousness which is indiscernible from a state of pure being (which is our "true nature"). Though my understanding is Hindus emphasize direct experience of this state over intellectual musings.

Is there anything else? I'm especially interested in any analytic philosophers who might have said something about this (it's my personal bias) but anything from continental or Eastern philosophy is welcome too, as long as there are arguments and not just assertions.

Answer 1

Are there philosophers who argue that there is a close connection (maybe even an identification) between being conscious and existing?

It seems to me that Descartes' cogito ergo sum is right up your alley. first person experience entails existence, and as I personally read into it: experience is existence.

However in contemporary non-continental philosophy of mind I don't recall any notable philosophers digging in that area.

It seems to me that Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and other mystical traditions such as Tibetan Dzogchen Buddhism, correspond better to your questions than contemporary western philosophy. However I would like to submit a few notes about the view that you ascribed to the Hindu mystic you met:

a) according to the two eastern traditions I have mentioned consciousness transcends all concepts, and in particular it cannot be said to exists or to not exist. that is, it transcends the (dual) concepts of existence and non-existence as well.

b) if you have personally found and recognized that impossible to define "magical" nature of consciousness, you have found that which concerns all mystical traditions. contrary to what the mystic you have met suggested, there is no further "magical" experience for you to find in the depth of some "exalted" and rare and transient state of mind.

Here is how this point is made in the Dzogchen song The Flight of the Garuda as translated by Erik Pema:

If you want to find something greater than this in another place, It is like going off searching for footprints although the elephant is right there. You may scan the entire three-thousandfold universe, But it is impossible that you will find more than the mere name of Buddha.

c) Most people and in particular philosophers including in particular philosophers of mind appear to be stubbornly blind to it - blind as bats (pun intended). this is why functional, computational, and material accounts of consciousness are so popular.

This claim is repeated in many mystical traditions. Here it is made in The Flight of the Garuda:

Not knowing that this state is within oneself, How amazing that one searches for it elsewhere. Although it is clearly manifest, like the radiant disc of the sun, How amazing that so few see it.

Answer 2

I would say qualia is a candidate, because while other things are considered to have intersubjective reality, mind experiences and subjectivity are considered entirely dependent on and identified with qualia, which ontically precede the external world. You might want to look into OrchOR for qualia meeting pansychism.

You might find the It From Bit doctrine relevant also:

"It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." - JA Wheeler in his classic paper introducing the doctrine

The relevant Buddhist philosophy is probably the 'mind only' yogacara perspective that underlies Tibetan and Zen philosophy (among other schools).

Answer 3

It is perhaps too simple an idea that consciousness is the potential of existential being “inflecting” upon itself.