Atheist Realism?

[iceaura]

Please consider the argument from Nagel, JAckson and Chalmers
It seems very difficult (if not impossible) that a unconscious reality can give rise to consciousness.

Happens all the time, with every baby born (animals, if humans seem special somehow)

 

[Myles]

"dog" has an english baggage, "chien" has a french baggage, but maybe they have the same referent

be open to other culture/belief/language is to recognize that word in one can be the same as another word in other, but anyway if you read the thread, I agreed now that the one who call themselves atheist (at least the one who believe in a reality behind their perceptions) believe in an unconscious reality/god, while the theist I was talking are believing in conscious god/reality.

So they are not talking about the same thing

But as I said for a closed minded extraterrestrial being who believe he is an atheist who share different belief about what is god could put human atheists an theists in the same class (the class of believer in some thing that does not match what for them is reality) while you atheist will say that the Extraterrestrial Being believe in another reality or maybe in another god (Depending of your openness)

Baggage is bagge whatever the language. The word is a noise denoting a particular object.

 

[ronan]

Happens all the time, with every baby born (animals, if humans seem special somehow)

Again an assumption

 

[ronan]

Baggage is bagge whatever the language. The word is a noise denoting a particular object.

Did you understand my point?

Forget about language if it is necessary for you that I use your language.
Just replace the word god by the word reality when I am talking about the one who call themselves atheist and replace the word reality by the word god when I am talking about the one who call themselves theist.
Like this you will be happy but my point won't be changed
Reread please

 

[ronan]

Then what gave rise to the consciousness of reality?

Nothing, there is nothign beyond reality
If there is this beyond is reality itself
And because nothing unconscious can give rise to consciousness, reality is conscious! (nothing give rise to its consciousness, it is conscious!)
God is conscious!!

 

[ronan]

Ok, thank you
I had no way of knowing whether you were calling God 'reality', or reality 'God'.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
You do not believe in any conventional sort of God, but rather you believe reality is somehow conscious. Correct ?

Conventional god? christian?
I think you should read the post again about history and many mystic.
The god I am talking is teh god shared by many mystic such as Meister Echart, St AUgustine (in some of his text), Advaita philosophy and others

You show that you did not understand my point about language

To use your language (so sad that you cannot use theist one, at least be open to it):
yes I believe in a conscious reality that I call god (like many others)

I'm guessing you don't mean in the same way as, for instance, humans are ?

It would probably be different.

To answer you question: I do not believe that, apart from certain life forms, reality is conscious.
Having said that, consciousness is, imo, nothing more than the sum of complex biological and electrical processes in the brain.
Perhaps I don't believe in your concept of consciousness all together.
I feel the concept of consciousness is rather insignificant when discussing reality in this sense.

It is because of argument from Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson...
Look for qualia on the web

 

[Pete]

Nothing, there is nothign beyond reality
If there is this beyond is reality itself
And because nothing unconscious can give rise to consciousness, reality is conscious! (nothing give rise to its consciousness, it is conscious!)
God is conscious!!

So nothing gave rise to reality. It's consciousness came from nothing... and yet you think that any other consciousness must have had a conscious source.

You're weird.

 

[ronan]

So nothing gave rise to reality. It's consciousness came from nothing... and yet you think that any other consciousness must have had a conscious source.

You're weird.

Nothing give rise to reality consciousness in the sense that reality always existed and was always conscious.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you want to say that we cannot know or that it is just that currently we don't know?

...that I currently don't know.

It is an assumption!
perception is there, it come from somewhere but you cannot know that you have a brain, you are maybe as I said a another being that dream to be a human
For senses It is debatable, and I can agree that we recognize 5 senses in our experiences but to say that they come from what we recognize as eyes, ears... and brain it is an assumption

It might be an assumption for a very uneducated person. There is alot that is known about human biology. Go ahead and inject some anesthetic in your arm. I bet you will lost alot of sensory perception in that area. Go ahead and anesthetize (chemically or electro-magnetically) different parts of your brain and observer what happens to your perception. Take some full anesthesia and see what happens to your consciousness. If you want to see your brain then go for an MRI or crack your skull open and take a picture.

That is a possibility for sure!
It means that you cannot know that what you are saying is real, you are maybe dreaming, or maybe you are in a matrix or anything else. It is a logical argument that you need to prove to be wrong if you want to say that what you see is real.

If it's present, consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory then it is real. Your buttefly dreaming of being a human scenario doesn't pass the test; hence, it is easily invalidated. My observation has been that some people have a hard time distinguishing between hypnagogia, hypnopompia, dreams, and reality. Even more people don't want to make that distinction as it threatens to slice right through the bias of magical thinking which is often incorporated into people's identities.

 

[ronan]

...that I currently don't know.

It might be an assumption for a very uneducated person. There is alot that is known about human biology. Go ahead and inject some anesthetic in your arm. I bet you will lost alot of sensory perception in that area. Go ahead and anesthetize (chemically or electro-magnetically) different parts of your brain and observer what happens to your perception. Take some full anesthesia and see what happens to your consciousness. If you want to see your brain then go for an MRI or crack your skull open and take a picture.

I know all that
But still we don't know if we are in fact dreaming of all this or not

If it's present, consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory then it is real. Your buttefly dreaming of being a human scenario doesn't pass the test; hence, it is easily invalidated. My observation has been that some people have a hard time distinguishing between hypnagogia, hypnopompia, dreams, and reality. Even more people don't want to make that distinction as it threatens to slice right through the bias of magical thinking which is often incorporated into people's identities.

forgot the butterfly, maybe you are something else who dream of being what you feel you are, your observation could be a dream
It is only when you wake up from a dream or when you realize that it was a dream (in case of lucid dream) that you finally know that it was dream, not otherwise because everything seems ok when you are dreaming

The logical argument is still valid and you have to prove that you are not dreaming: But you cannot !

 

[Pete]

Nothing give rise to reality consciousness in the sense that reality always existed and was always conscious.

There you go... now you're a standard theist again.
BUt you still have your words mixed up - now you're saying "reality" when you mean "God".

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I know all that
But still we don't know if we are in fact dreaming of all this or not

The concept of a 'dream' is only available to us because as humans we dream while sleep. It is a hallucinatory simulation generated by the brain. That is why dream content is inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory. In a dream you cannot perform an action that results in absence of consciousness. You cannot break your arm. You cannot die.

When awake, you can do all those things and EVERYTHING is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

forgot the butterfly, maybe you are something else who dream of being what you feel you are, your observation could be a dream
It is only when you wake up from a dream or when you realize that it was a dream (in case of lucid dream) that you finally know that it was dream, not otherwise because everything seems ok when you are dreaming

The logical argument is still valid and you have to prove that you are not dreaming: But you cannot !

It's not a valid argument because the concept of a dream is a result of when humans dream. It is a biological function that allows us to perform in a simulated environment. Ever have a nightmare? That's a threat simulation that allows you to practice evasion or fighting in a safe environment. Even the event of dreaming is geared towards human persistence. Your argument is a projection of the human behavior of dreaming onto a hypothetical situation. It is anthropomorphism applied to concept and of course has no basis of actually being real. Not only is it improbable, it's not even possible.

 

[ronan]

There you go... now you're a standard theist again.
BUt you still have your words mixed up - now you're saying "reality" when you mean "God".

Call it standard or not, it is ok for me.
I don't even know what would mean standard here for you.


I am a theist that believe in an eternal conscious reality that I call god

if you believe that reality was not eternal, then you are a special kind of realist, but I would ask you: what was before reality ?
if you believe that there was there was nothing, then how can something come from nothing?

 

[ronan]

The concept of a 'dream' is only available to us because as humans we dream while sleep. It is a hallucinatory simulation generated by the brain. That is why dream content is inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory. In a dream you cannot perform an action that results in absence of consciousness. You cannot break your arm. You cannot die.

When awake, you can do all those things and EVERYTHING is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

You have difficulties, Is there someone here we can explain him ? (atheist would be better because else he would probably not believe)

In a dream you can belief that you broke your arm, the idea here is to say that maybe when you believe that you break your arm for "real" it is in fact also a dream.

In a dream it is only after you woke up (at least for certain dream) that you realize that it was inconsistent, contradictory and non-persistent.

It's not a valid argument because the concept of a dream is a result of when humans dream. It is a biological function that allows us to perform in a simulated environment. Ever have a nightmare? That's a threat simulation that allows you to practice evasion or fighting in a safe environment. Even the event of dreaming is geared towards human persistence. Your argument is a projection of the human behavior of dreaming onto a hypothetical situation. It is anthropomorphism applied to concept and of course has no basis of actually being real. Not only is it improbable, it's not even possible.

You really don't understand the point.
The fact is that when you dream you can have this similar impression of living in a consistent and non contradictory world and that is persistent until you wake-up (realize that it was a dream).

Similarly, maybe you are living in such a dream. You cannot know that you do not.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You have difficulties, Is there someone here we can explain him ? (atheist would be better because else he would probably not believe)

In a dream you can belief that you broke your arm, the idea here is to say that maybe when you believe that you break your arm for "real" it is in fact also a dream.

In a dream when you think you break your arm, that scenario only lasts for a brief moment (your arm will appear to be fine later on in the dream). Also, you cannot perform an action to force yourself unconscious. You cannot kill yourself. It is effectively a safe zone.

There are no such safety nets when awake.

In a dream it is only after you woke up (at least for certain dream) that you realize that it was inconsistent, contradictory and non-persistent.

I am very good at spotting the inconsistent, contradictory, and non-persistent in dreams. In fact there are certain aspects of dreams (for example the behavior of text in a book) which is universal for all dreamers.

You really don't understand the point.
The fact is that when you dream you can have this similar impression of living in a consistent and non contradictory world and that is persistent until you wake-up (realize that it was a dream).

Similarly, maybe you are living in such a dream. You cannot know that you do not.

I can spot the inconsistent, contradictory and non-persistent while in a dream... because those features of dream content exist and are noticeable. Those same features cannot be spotted in reality because they do not exist.

Think of it this way. If your waking day was really a dream then your "real" mind would have to use an enormous amount of energy to simulate your 'perceived' reality. In fact it would be on a scale so large humans don't even have a name for that many zeros. And what would be the function of such a dream? Humans dream so they can practice functioning in a safe environment while asleep. Its a survival tactic.

While the idea of reality being a dream is entertaining, it is not possible. The concept of a dream is only available because we dream and can observe others in REM cycles. Dreams are safe and reality is not. Dreams are inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory (and can be recognized as such from within the dream). Reality is not. In dreams you cannot force yourself to lose consciousness. In reality you can.

 

[ronan]

In a dream when you think you break your arm, that scenario only lasts for a brief moment (your arm will appear to be fine later on in the dream). Also, you cannot perform an action to force yourself unconscious. You cannot kill yourself. It is effectively a safe zone.

There are no such safety nets when awake.



I am very good at spotting the inconsistent, contradictory, and non-persistent in dreams. In fact there are certain aspects of dreams (for example the behavior of text in a book) which is universal for all dreamers.





I can spot the inconsistent, contradictory and non-persistent while in a dream... because those features of dream content exist and are noticeable. Those same features cannot be spotted in reality because they do not exist.

Think of it this way. If your waking day was really a dream then your "real" mind would have to use an enormous amount of energy to simulate your 'perceived' reality. In fact it would be on a scale so large humans don't even have a name for that many zeros. And what would be the function of such a dream? Humans dream so they can practice functioning in a safe environment while asleep. Its a survival tactic.

While the idea of reality being a dream is entertaining, it is not possible. The concept of a dream is only available because we dream and can observe others in REM cycles. Dreams are safe and reality is not. Dreams are inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory (and can be recognized as such from within the dream). Reality is not. In dreams you cannot force yourself to lose consciousness. In reality you can.

You still make the same mistake.
First, there are dreams that appears consistent, non contradictory and persistent until you wake up.
If you did not experienced them does not mean that nobody did.

Second, Even if there was not maybe you are still in a dream that appears consistent, non-contradictory and persistent. and when you die you will realize it, but even after death, you would probably be in another dream, the point is that YOU CANNOT KNOW.

some time in waking state you are tricked by hallucination or optical illusion and it is after that you realize that they were illusion and hallucination that you consider them as such.

For the case of that your dream would need a lot amount of energy, ok and what ? if all our scientific knowledge are about a dream, maybe other laws would apply in the "real" world, which is maybe another dream...

The point is still there and will be always there,
You are maybe dreaming in the sense that there is the possibility that you will wake up one day and realize the inconsistency and contradiction and non-persistence of your believed consistent, non contradictory and persistent reality

 

[Myles]

Call it standard or not, it is ok for me.
I don't even know what would mean standard here for you.


I am a theist that believe in an eternal conscious reality that I call god

if you believe that reality was not eternal, then you are a special kind of realist, but I would ask you: what was before reality ?
if you believe that there was there was nothing, then how can something come from nothing?

So where did you god come from ?

 

[Myles]

Call it standard or not, it is ok for me.
I don't even know what would mean standard here for you.


I am a theist that believe in an eternal conscious reality that I call god

if you believe that reality was not eternal, then you are a special kind of realist, but I would ask you: what was before reality ?
if you believe that there was there was nothing, then how can something come from nothing?

I am an atheist who believes in an uncosscious eternal reality. Why is your notion right and mine wrong ?

 

[Enmos]

Conventional god? christian?
I think you should read the post again about history and many mystic.
The god I am talking is teh god shared by many mystic such as Meister Echart, St AUgustine (in some of his text), Advaita philosophy and others

You show that you did not understand my point about language

To use your language (so sad that you cannot use theist one, at least be open to it):
yes I believe in a conscious reality that I call god (like many others)




It would probably be different.


It is because of argument from Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson...
Look for qualia on the web

With 'conventional god' I meant a personified god, in stead of just regarding nature as god or godlike.

 

[Enmos]

because nothing unconscious can give rise to consciousness, reality is conscious!

Rather big and disturbing assumption there..