Atheist Realism?

[Myles]

1) consciousness is the feeling of what it is like to be something
2) the evidence is consciousness itself:
because you know and I know that we are conscious: so consciousness exist (even if you are dreaming, your consciousness exist)
3) now consciousness cannot come from unconsciousness so reality has to be conscious! this conscious reality, I call it god

In yourterms, consciousness is not evidence of itself. You might be dreaming you are conscious when, in reality, you are npo.

I asked you for your definition of consciousness. How about an answer ?

How do you know consciounsness cannot evolve from organisms which were initially unconscious ? You are making an assumption which you cannot support.

Why do you call consciousness god or god consciousness. Consciousness is a perfectgly good stand-alone word. Why call it god at all ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

why so?
we experienced dream in the sense that we know that we were sleeping and thus that it was false.
From this knowledge it follow that MAYBE you are also dreaming when you believe you are awake (as you believe that when you are in fact dreaming (in our experience) at least for the first second)

Simply put, because you cannot know whether or not reality is in fact reality or a simulation; hence, any concepts you use for your claim of possibility come from experiences (which are maybe part of a simulation). Any claim of possibility; thus, immediately becomes invalidated.

Please understand I say that we cannot know, if we can, prove it that you are not dreaming

What you are saying, however, is that it is a possibility that reality might be a dream. To claim a possibility (a probability of any percentage) means that you are employing concepts that come from your experiences which might be part of the dream; hence, such a claim is invalid.

Yes all would break but because it would only be a dream, it won't matter

I agree; however, all that agreement stems from experiences which might be part of the dream so your assertion and my agreement are both invalid.

It imply the same thing as I was saying:It is only after a dream is recognized for what it is that you know the associated experience is the result of a dream

Many case of people learn during dream. and even if it was not the case,
If you are dreaming then what you believe is knowledge, would in fact not be knowledge!
So your argument about knowledge is based on the fact that you assume you are not dreaming, but you have to prove it first

My argument on knowledge was based on the comparison of reality vs. dreams and was targeted on new subject matters (ex. physics, calculus, c++, etc.). There are zero instances of anyone spontaneously learning a new subject matter in a dream; however, if reality is a dream than any thoughts that you or I have about it are based on our existing experiences and are therefor invalid. Do you see the point? Any idea, notion, feeling, whim, etc. that you have is utterly invalid because its based on your experiences. The only way for you to get away from this is apply some validity to your experiences in which case the idea that they might be simulated can be falsified. Invalidated or falsified... your choice.

Which experiences allow you to separate a dream to a awake state?
And if they fails to indicate that you are in a dream, does it imply that they will allways fails ? No, not in a dream (the point at issue)

Those experiences are bullet-point listed in post #263. Whether you can apply them in a dream all depends on your ability to function critically in reduced brain activity state. Soemtimes you can do it and other times you just kind of go with the flow. In reality you can always function critically (assuming you have a healthy brain). The distinction between dream and reality is quite recognizeable and it is self evident that equality doesn't exist. That's why your claim that reality might possibly be a dream stands falsified because it doesn't equate to a dream; however, if you state that such refutation is invalid because it's based on experience then I'll go ahead and do the same to your claim of possibility. Invalid or falsified... either way there is nothing for your argument to stand on.

You don;t get it:
your basic argument is as follow:
you assume that you are not dreaming
then by taking evidence from your experiences (which you assumed is not a dream)
you conclude that you are not dreaming

It is completely circular

Here is my argument:

I am a difference detection machine that collects energy to persist. A survival trait of my ancesters was sapience and I inherited that. Sapience uses alot of energy and requires a regeneration period. During that regeneration period my sapience is periodically re-enabled in a minimal mode and put through simulations that enhance my ability to survive. Those simulations are called dreams and can be distinguished from waking consciousness through a plethora of consistent differences.

You claimed that it is a possibility that reality is a dream. I falsified that claim by showing inequality between a dream and reality. I even offered a falsification based on energy requirements if you were to claim reality was a non-dream simulation.

You then claimed that my falsification was based on my experiences which might be a dream and therefore was invalid. I then turned it right back on you stating that your claim of possibility was based on your experiences which might be a dream and therefore was invalid.

So your argument stands falsified or invalid and there are no circular references. So, this "problem" of reality possibly being a dream is certainly no problem.

No I copy your statement:
"The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality hence, reality is not a dream."

But the first part:"The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality " IS THE POINT AT ISSUE

I think you might have missed the importance of what you just stated. The concept of a dream is well defined and doesn't correspond to reality. To claim reality might be a dream is to claim a correspondence exists between reality and a dream... which doesn't. It's like saying a bird might be a strawberry when a strawberry is well defined and doesn't correspond to a bird.

 

[Myles]

That is exactly what I am saying, He is the one famous for saying that we are maybe dreaming and the only way he could say that he was not is was by postulating an external god. (which I don't and you don't.
you should read Descartes



Lucid dream are interesting, but it does not mean that what you say is not a dream can finnally become a lucid dream.

You are wrong about Descartes. His way out of his dilemna was his " cogito ergo sum", which some philosophers would say he was not entitled to claim. He should have restricted himself to " there is thinking".

His argument for god resulted in what became known as the Cartesian circle.

Edit. I will not respond to your comment on lucid dreaming because you have missed my point completely; we have enough confusion without adding to it.

 

[Enmos]

I am not lost, don't worry, I know completely where I am
I just say we can experience yellow feeling (personally it is what I would call yellowness) and in that sense it exists in our experience, in our consciousness, while unconsciousness cannot exist in consciousness (experience) by definition

Don't you understand my point ?

No, I do not get your point. What the fuck is 'a yellow feeling' ?
You are basically just saying you are right because you say so.

 

[ronan]

In yourterms, consciousness is not evidence of itself. You might be dreaming you are conscious when, in reality, you are npo.

That's the point, if you are dreaming, at least you have consciousness, else you would not be able to dream

I asked you for your definition of consciousness. How about an answer ?

I answered: it is the feeling to what is like to be something or maybe more accurately, what is necessary for feeling what is like to be something

How do you know consciounsness cannot evolve from organisms which were initially unconscious ? You are making an assumption which you cannot support.

Read Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson, any knowledge abotu unconscious matter will not help you about consciousness.

Why do you call consciousness god or god consciousness. Consciousness is a perfectgly good stand-alone word. Why call it god at all ?

I call conscious reality god because something cannot come from nothing: our individual consciousness (our perceptions ) have to come from somewhere (a conscious reality, or in other words god)

 

[ronan]

Crunchy Cat you are inconsistent
are you saying now that we cannot know? => It was my point!
or are you again saying by using evidence from your experiences that you are not dreaming?

 

[ronan]

You are wrong about Descartes. His way out of his dilemna was his " cogito ergo sum", which some philosophers would say he was not entitled to claim. He should have restricted himself to " there is thinking".

exatly, it is why I just say that there is consciousness ("there is thinking" please note that when Descartes was using the term "thinking" he referred to anything occuring in consciousness), it is also why even if you dream, there is still consciousness

His argument for god resulted in what became known as the Cartesian circle.

I don't use the same argument, and if you find my argument not working prove it!

Edit. I will not respond to your comment on lucid dreaming because you have missed my point completely; we have enough confusion without adding to it.

ok

 

[ronan]

No, I do not get your point. What the fuck is 'a yellow feeling' ?
You are basically just saying you are right because you say so.

My point is just that you cannot experience unconsciousness,
so to talk about yellow which is somehow experienced, cannot be applied to unconsciousness

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat you are inconsistent
are you saying now that we cannot know? => It was my point!
or are you again saying by using evidence from your experiences that you are not dreaming?

I am saying:

A) If you claim there is a possibility that reality is a dream based on experiences then I can falsify the claim using experiences.

B) If you claim there is a possibility that reality is a dream based on experiences but reject falsifications based on experiences then I will reject the claim on the same grounds.

You seem to like the path of B) and it terminates the argument before it even begins. You don't seem to like the path of A) even though it gives you the best opportunity to be correct because it allows you to captialize on the detection of presence and difference.

 

[ronan]

I am saying:

A) If you claim there is a possibility that reality is a dream based on experiences then I can falsify the claim using experiences.

yes, I am claiming that there is possibility (not based on anything than logic) and it is to you to prove that it is not a possibility
because at first something can always be true or false, it is only after you find that one possibility is false that you can choose.

B) If you claim there is a possibility that reality is a dream based on experiences but reject falsifications based on experiences then I will reject the claim on the same grounds.

You cannot because my claim is only about possibility that is the point: I don't say that I know it is a dream, I say that I cannot know that it a dream or not!

You seem to like the path of B) and it terminates the argument before it even begins. You don't seem to like the path of A) even though it gives you the best opportunity to be correct because it allows you to captialize on the detection of presence and difference.

You should think more:

look:

we always have the right to assume that something is ether true or false
because in logic:
false OR true = true

So let assume that
1) we are dreaming or we are not dreaming
this is true by two way:
1.1)because if we are not dreaming then 1) is true
1.2)and if we are dreaming 1) is true as well

Now my point is that we cannot choose (in the sense of knowing which one is true) between them because any argument in both case will rely on experiences (that can be in a dream because we could not yet choose between 1.1) and 1.2) ) !

Don't you understand now ?

 

[Myles]

That's the point, if you are dreaming, at least you have consciousness, else you would not be able to dream

So why conjecture that we might be dreaming all the time ? I have explained that the brain undergoes measurable changes when we dream so, taking your idea to its logical conclusion, you would argue that someone dreaming is being monitored by others who are dreaming even though there are two distinct brainstates involved. That is a self -contradictory argument. unless you claim that all brainstates could be associated with dreaming which, in the circumstances I have described, would be perverse.

I answered: it is the feeling to what is like to be something or maybe more accurately, what is necessary for feeling what is like to be something

I do not disagree with that broad definition in the present state of our knowledge but, if you read the writhings of neuroscientist Professor Susan Greenfield, among others, you will see that there is no agreed definition of consciousness and it is not clear what questions we should be asking and what answers would make sense. You might also like to check out Professor Patricia Churchland on the subject.

Read Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson, any knowledge abotu unconscious matter will not help you about consciousness.

Are you suggesting that theirs is the only view and that they must be right ?I believe the question is still open , so I would prefer to say the matter has not yet been settled


I call conscious reality god because something cannot come from nothing: our individual consciousness (our perceptions ) have to come from somewhere (a conscious reality, or in other words god

If something cannot come from nothing where did god/consciousness come from ?

 

[ronan]

That's the point, if you are dreaming, at least you have consciousness, else you would not be able to dream

So why conjecture that we might be dreaming all the time ? I have explained that the brain undergoes measurable changes when we dream so, taking your idea to its logical conclusion, you would argue that someone dreaming is being monitored by others who are dreaming even though there are two distinct brainstates involved. That is a self -contradictory argument. unless you claim that all brainstates could be associated with dreaming which, in the circumstances I have described, would be perverse.

why you talk about brain and other person, I told you maybe you are dreaming, my point is that the only thing that we can know is that there is consciousness ("There is thinking")

I answered: it is the feeling to what is like to be something or maybe more accurately, what is necessary for feeling what is like to be something

I do not disagree with that broad definition in the present state of our knowledge but, if you read the writhings of neuroscientist Professor Susan Greenfield, among others, you will see that there is no agreed definition of consciousness and it is not clear what questions we should be asking and what answers would make sense. You might also like to check out Professor Patricia Churchland on the subject.

I don't try to really define it except that we know it exist because we feel something. In fact I don't really need to define it except by the fact that it is the only thing that you know for sure exist.

Read Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson, any knowledge abotu unconscious matter will not help you about consciousness.

Are you suggesting that theirs is the only view and that they must be right ?I believe the question is still open , so I would prefer to say the matter has not yet been settled

I think they show clearly that no knowledge of unconscious matter can give us any clue about what would be the feeling of something, because we have to feel it in order to know

I call conscious reality god because something cannot come from nothing: our individual consciousness (our perceptions ) have to come from somewhere (a conscious reality, or in other words god

If something cannot come from nothing where did god/consciousness come from ?

I already answered that: god always existed

 

[ronan]

Re reading your comment:

Why do you call consciousness god or god consciousness. Consciousness is a perfectgly good stand-alone word. Why call it god at all ?

In fact I would be happy to call it consciousness but not "individual consciousness"

So to be in accordance with many other texts written by mystic in the past that have described nicely and poetically, and to separate it from individual consciousness, I call it god.

Also I like to call it "conscious reality" to avoid upsetting the so called atheists who believe in an unconscious reality and to separate it from individual consciousness.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

yes, I am claiming that there is possibility (not based on anything than logic) and it is to you to prove that it is not a possibility
because at first something can always be true or false, it is only after you find that one possibility is false that you can choose.

You cannot because my claim is only about possibility that is the point: I don't say that I know it is a dream, I say that I cannot know that it a dream or not!

Logic is lerned as an experience from within reality and could be completely invalidated in scenario B). When you claim a possibility it is the same thing as claiming a probability. It is saying that for every 1 in (n) samples, something will be true. For something to be true the idea has to correspond with reality (i.e. reality has to agree). The onus is on you to demonstrate the correspondence exists for whatever probability your possibility translates to for scenario A).

You should think more:

look:

we always have the right to assume that something is ether true or false
because in logic:
false OR true = true

Having a 'right' isn't the applicable concept. People just make assumptions that something is true or false (often based on how an idea makes them feel).

So let assume that
1) we are dreaming or we are not dreaming
this is true by two way:
1.1)because if we are not dreaming then 1) is true
1.2)and if we are dreaming 1) is true as well

Now my point is that we cannot choose (in the sense of knowing which one is true) between them because any argument in both case will rely on experiences (that can be in a dream because we could not yet choose between 1.1) and 1.2) ) !

Don't you understand now ?

Your idea was simple to understand from the start. The claim of it being an objective possibility is simply not true. I could respond to the logic above by defining dreams and showing they are not equal to reality; hence, falsifying the assumption. Of course you point out that my response relied on experience so I could nto use it, but then I would point out that the concept of a concept, logic, dreams, assumptions, etc. relied on experience so your claim never gets out the door.

Do you understand now? You are selectively using concepts from your experiences to issue a claim of possibility and then dismissing any refutation because it is also based on experiences. Your choices are to allow experiences (in which case your argument can be falsified) or to not allow experiences (in which case your argument never gets out the door).

 

[Myles]

why you talk about brain and other person, I told you maybe you are dreaming, my point is that the only thing that we can know is that there is consciousness ("There is thinking")


I don't try to really define it except that we know it exist because we feel something. In fact I don't really need to define it except by the fact that it is the only thing that you know for sure exist.


I think they show clearly that no knowledge of unconscious matter can give us any clue about what would be the feeling of something, because we have to feel it in order to know

I already answered that: god always existed

Read my post again and explain how you would resolve the problem concerning two states of mind and dreaming. Think about it and you will see it vitiates your argument. If you still cannot or will not see my point you are either stubbprn or obtuse.

Everything you have said is pure speculation which ultimately leads nowhwere. Use your reason, see what scientists have to say on the subject and re-think your position.

I know you answered that god always existed. But you have previously argued that nothing comes from nowhere, so where did god come from?

It is not enough to claim he always existed; you must adduce evidence to support your point

 

[ronan]

Read my post again and explain how you would resolve the problem concerning two states of mind and dreaming. Think about it and you will see it vitiates your argument. If you still cannot or will not see my point you are either stubbprn or obtuse.

You don't understand, you postulate the existence of two people but if you are dreaming you also dream that some people are studying your brain, People, brain are all part of your dream.

Everything you have said is pure speculation which ultimately leads nowhwere. Use your reason, see what scientists have to say on the subject and re-think your position.

I know you answered that god always existed. But you have previously argued that nothing comes from nowhere, so where did god come from?

When I say nothing conmes from nowhere/nothing I want to say that something cannot come from nothing

It is not enough to claim he always existed; you must adduce evidence to support your point

It is self evident that reality is eternal because something has to come from something

 

[ronan]

Logic is lerned as an experience from within reality and could be completely invalidated in scenario B). When you claim a possibility it is the same thing as claiming a probability. It is saying that for every 1 in (n) samples, something will be true. For something to be true the idea has to correspond with reality (i.e. reality has to agree). The onus is on you to demonstrate the correspondence exists for whatever probability your possibility translates to for scenario A).

I you say that logic itself is invalidated by the fact that we are maybe dreaming , then it also lead to the fact that we cannot know if we are dreaming or not because even our logic has no power to prove anything

Having a 'right' isn't the applicable concept. People just make assumptions that something is true or false (often based on how an idea makes them feel).

but the point is that assumptions containing only two mutually exclusive statement linked with a "OR" are always true
You are dreaming OR you are not dreaming is always true (self evident)

Now to prove that you are not dreaming or that you are in fact dreaming will necessitate an evidence!

But you cannot as I told many time! Why?
Because you will have to take evidence from your experiences!! (which are at issue

Your idea was simple to understand from the start. The claim of it being an objective possibility is simply not true. I could respond to the logic above by defining dreams and showing they are not equal to reality; hence, falsifying the assumption. Of course you point out that my response relied on experience so I could nto use it, but then I would point out that the concept of a concept, logic, dreams, assumptions, etc. relied on experience so your claim never gets out the door.

defining and showing ? what the fuck are you talking?
if you define then you don't need to show
PLEASE NOTE: by defining you can do whatever you want. defining is not a proof!

and as I said if you say that we can never gets out the door it is fine for me because my point is that we cannot know!

Do you understand now? You are selectively using concepts from your experiences to issue a claim of possibility and then dismissing any refutation because it is also based on experiences. Your choices are to allow experiences (in which case your argument can be falsified) or to not allow experiences (in which case your argument never gets out the door).

You are a confused guy, please be more clear when you want to set arguments (it should be easy if for you it is clear)

look:

if I don't allow experiences you mean that I don't even allow logic ?
then as I told you, it is fine because then again, I cannot know whether I am dreaming or not (because logic not working, you cannot prove anything)

if you allow experiences, these one cannot be used to prove that you are not dreaming because maybe you are dreaming (and thus experiences are not reliable)


PLEASE Crunchy Cat, use your "real" mind

 

[Enmos]

My point is just that you cannot experience unconsciousness,
so to talk about yellow which is somehow experienced, cannot be applied to unconsciousness

What was I thinking.. good day sir..

 

[Myles]

You don't understand, you postulate the existence of two people but if you are dreaming you also dream that some people are studying your brain, People, brain are all part of your dream.


When I say nothing conmes from nowhere/nothing I want to say that something cannot come from nothing

It is self evident that reality is eternal because something has to come from something

You miss the point. Dreaming can be recognized by a particular brain state as measured in the laboratory. A waking state can also be measured. So we have two distinct brain states to consider. If you claim the people observing the dreamer are, themselves, dreaming, then you must explain why two different brain states equate to dreaming. You have not done so.

Your whole argument about dreaming is no more than metaphysical sspeculation. Why not assume we are not always dreaming, a statement which fits the observable facts better than your vague, unsupported claim ?


You claim something cannot come from nothing, so where did god/consciousness come from . You say they are eternal, so you need to explain why they are an exception to your rule.Why is it self-evident that reality is eternal ? I take it you are now lumping god, consciousness and reality together.

Wht couldn't the universe be eternal ?

 

[kenworth]

put down the thread and walk away,ronan is deeply deeply into semantics.you will only end up tearing your hair out and killing yourself and everyone around you.