Atheist Realism?
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
Ronan,
Then define consciousness.
Then define consciousness.
What is consciosness?
That’s an assumption. What is consciousness?
But what is consciosness?
Huh?
Then what is consciosness?
No we don’t. that’s your assumption. Justify it.
When you say “you” you mean the concept of “I”, right? Otherwise what do you mean by “you”? What is “something”? What do you mean by “feel”? In your simple assertion is an array of assumptions that you say we must not make.
Define it first very clearly and precisely then we can consider if it actually exists?
No, let’s start by doubting your assumptions.
Cris?
Are you conscious ? (I have some doubt, sorry
)
If you think you are, why do you not accept the evidence?
Consciousness is probably ineffable and if it is not its definition can only be given after knowing its role and mechanisms.
But we all know what I am talking about, at least enough to start.
I repeat, do you agree that consciousness exist?
If not, why are you saying that it may not exist?
if you cannot find any reason (outside your biological science for which you cannot rely now because of the skepticism advocated here) why cannot you accept that indeed, consciousness exist.
Are you conscious ? (I have some doubt, sorry
)If you think you are, why do you not accept the evidence?
Consciousness is probably ineffable and if it is not its definition can only be given after knowing its role and mechanisms.
But we all know what I am talking about, at least enough to start.
I repeat, do you agree that consciousness exist?
If not, why are you saying that it may not exist?
if you cannot find any reason (outside your biological science for which you cannot rely now because of the skepticism advocated here) why cannot you accept that indeed, consciousness exist.
consciousness (the self) is an illusion, that's why it's impossible to die or disappear or attain everlasting nirvana, annihilation.... because there is no self to begin with. consciousness is a thought. it's the thought that the thought "i" is different and separate from the thought "world".
we will always be conscious because even if we sometimes become unconscious, we can't be conscious of it.
we are conscious because we can't "be" unconscious because "being" can only be when there is consciousness. unconsciousness (nothing) becomes conscious because it's the only way it can (appear to) "be", which it has to do because it (nothing) is the only thing that "exists".
we will always be conscious because even if we sometimes become unconscious, we can't be conscious of it.
we are conscious because we can't "be" unconscious because "being" can only be when there is consciousness. unconsciousness (nothing) becomes conscious because it's the only way it can (appear to) "be", which it has to do because it (nothing) is the only thing that "exists".
Last edited:
Ronan,
Define consciousness then we can discuss further.
What does conscious mean?
Define what you mean so I don’t have to assume anything.
We can’t effectively discuss such things until we agree on its definition. If you can’t define it then there is nothing that can be discussed.
Clearly we don’t otherwise this thread would not have gone on so long. The definition of consciousness is central to your entire argument. You cannot expect to argue for something without defining it and then make an assumption that everyone will agree with you.
Depends if we can agree on how it is defined. You appear to be making unjustifiable assumptions about it.
But what is it?
Define consciousness then we can discuss further.
The thread have been so long, not because of the definition of consciousness but because of other things. It is only now that you talk about a definition that can only given afterward.
Indeed, definitions will imply assumptions
You know you are conscious,
consciousness is what make you able to be conscious.
I think this definition suffice for my arguments.
A better definition can only be given/constructed after having seen what assumptions we can make. Definition should never be before, else we will already assume so many thing.
What assumption I put except that it exists and that it makes perceptions possible?
And its existence is not an assumption, you know that but you seem to do not want to accept and continue further.
If you say that you are conscious, you agree that consciousness exist and this consciousness make you able to perceive things.
can we continue?
consciousness of an ego is maybe an illusion but consciousness itself (not the "Ï" that you identify with some of the perceptions) exists.
Right!
unconsciousness is an assumption
if you say that nothing is the only thing that exist you contradict yourself.
something has to exist and it is consciousness itself.
Ronan,
I simply have no confidence in what you think is consciousness is the same as my perception of it. Therefore it is important for you define what you think is meant by consciousness so we can find common ground if any.
Precisely what do you think is meant by the term consciousness?
Define what you mean by exists? Is it a concept like “justice” or is it physical, or is it supernatural, or what?
Like one of your earlier assumptions that consciousness is god.
Yes but I think you mean that means something that I do not.
I simply have no confidence in what you think is consciousness is the same as my perception of it. Therefore it is important for you define what you think is meant by consciousness so we can find common ground if any.
That doesn’t help much. What do you mean by conscious?
That is nonsense. If something has a name and a label then that implies it has a meaning. The label alone is of no value.
Precisely what do you think is meant by the term consciousness?
What do you mean that it exists? Do you think it is a concept, or an actual entity, or what? What do you mean when you say it exists?
From this thread I have no confidence that what you mean by something coincides with anything I might mean by the same terms.
Define what you mean by exists? Is it a concept like “justice” or is it physical, or is it supernatural, or what?
Nope you aren’t close yet. Define what you mean by all those terms.
Not until you have defined all the terms you are ASSUMING we all accept according to your perceptions of them.
Justice is about moral (we are not yet at this stage)
physical usually imply unconsciousness (so it is certainly not that, at least not at this stage)
supernatural imply that it is over or more than nature, I don't even know what does it means (so I won't use this term)
existence is relative to reality. To say that something exist is to say that it is in reality, or that it is reality itself. Reality I defined it at what is behind our perceptions (or more adequately what generate them).
consciousness as I told you so many times, is what make able the apparency of perceptions. It is what makes perceptions possible.
About god, I simply used it as another term for consciousness. god is a indeed word used by many theist to refer to consciousness. You do not need to agree but disagreeing it is like disagreeing that when French use the word "chien" it refera to "dog" in English.
Anyway, let's continue with the word "consciousness" to keep you psychologically safe.
Why you keep saying that I do not refers to the same thing as what you think is consciousness?
You feel something, you feel yourself, you experience emotions, you see bananas, dogs... all this are perceptions, they are in some sense inside (or part of) consciousness
so consciousness is what contains these perceptions but it is also what generate them because without consciousness there will be no perceptions
the definition is of course not precise because we don't want to make assumption yet. I want to give possibilities of explanation.
for example, maybe as you said it is physical (generated by brain processes) but at this stage we cannot say that. we doubted everything and we are left with consciousness that in some way makes perceptions possible.
I think you have also consciousness so you can also help me build the definition instead of just saying that I do not define it.
Ronan,
I think this statement drom Wikipedia describes a great deal of our present position -
Consciousness is a state that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of self, although not necessarily all of these.[1] Consciousness is a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.[2] Julian Jaynes has emphasized that "Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse consciousness with perception." [3]
Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself (being something), and access consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).[4]
The issue of what consciousness is, and to what extent and in what sense it exists, is the subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill individuals;[5] to what extent non-humans are self conscious; at what point in fetal development consciousness begins; and whether computers can achieve conscious states.[6][7][8]
In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in a coma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
LOL. I meant the term as an example of something that definitely exists but only as an abstraction.
I think this statement drom Wikipedia describes a great deal of our present position -
Consciousness is a state that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of self, although not necessarily all of these.[1] Consciousness is a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.[2] Julian Jaynes has emphasized that "Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse consciousness with perception." [3]
Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself (being something), and access consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).[4]
The issue of what consciousness is, and to what extent and in what sense it exists, is the subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill individuals;[5] to what extent non-humans are self conscious; at what point in fetal development consciousness begins; and whether computers can achieve conscious states.[6][7][8]
In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in a coma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
After pages and pages of asking for a definition of consciousness from Ronan, he has to provide one himself.
Was it that hard ronan?
Was it that hard ronan?
It does not bring clarity at all
On the contrary we are getting confused here
"Consciousnes is a state that defies definition,"
I would agree
"consciousness is a point of view, an I".
I disagree, the "I" is a perception of consciousness,
consciousness is beyond the "I"
if you agree with the definition :
consciousness is what makes perception possible
we can continue, else bring a clear one.
On the contrary we are getting confused here
"Consciousnes is a state that defies definition,"
I would agree
"consciousness is a point of view, an I".
I disagree, the "I" is a perception of consciousness,
consciousness is beyond the "I"
if you agree with the definition :
consciousness is what makes perception possible
we can continue, else bring a clear one.
So Yorda,
are you saying that consciousness cannot become conscious of itself? As in apperception or the awareness of awareness?
I would agree if the "I" you say is not what you identify as what you are, namely a human currently writing on a forum.
Because this description is a perception and not consciousness itself.
Do you see the point?
That's why Descartes have been criticized about his "cogito ergo sum"
Because this description is a perception and not consciousness itself.
Do you see the point?
That's why Descartes have been criticized about his "cogito ergo sum"
Ronan,
For example we know a car has a number of properties and capabilities, its "consciousness", but the details of the journey it took from A to B has nothing to do with what is a car.
I hope that analogy works and if so then I think I understand what you mean.
I think what you mean is the distinction between the function of consciousness as opposed to how we use it.
For example we know a car has a number of properties and capabilities, its "consciousness", but the details of the journey it took from A to B has nothing to do with what is a car.
I hope that analogy works and if so then I think I understand what you mean.
In some way we can say that, consciousness is the function (car) by which perceptions (the journey) are possible.
so now we agree,
consciousness (the function (the car) by which perceptions (the journey) is possible) exists
we cannot deny that.
But if we want to go beyond, we can notice that the journey (perceptions) are present as well.
We can see 3 possible ASSUMPTIONS which will deal with the presence of these perceptions.
A1) the perceptions are based on an unconscious substance
consciousness is another substance which interact with the unconscious substance to form specific experiences.
=> dualism
A2) the perceptions are based on an unconscious substance
consciousness is caused by this unconscious substance as well
=> physical monism
A3) the perceptions are based on consciousness itself
=> consciousness monism
All these 3 assumptions requires proof:
for A1) you have to prove that unconscious substance exists and that consciousness and unconscious substance can interact
for A2) you have to prove that unconscious substance exists and that unconscious substance can give rise to consciousness + perceptions.
for A3) you have to prove that the content is is a result of consciousness alone
Note: You can do prove A3) if you disprove A1) and A2) , namely, that an unconscious substance can not give rise to consciousness and cannot interact with it.
Note: you cannot prove A1) and A2) because unconscious substance cannot be experienced.
while you cannot prove that unconscious substance does not exist neither, if the interaction is prove to be impossible, it would mean that even if it exists it would have no consequence on our experiences.
As I said in a later post the link between unconscious substance and consciousness is the hard problem:
So if you agree with that we then can argue about the hard problem.
Last edited:
Perception is consciousness, which is composed of information. Whatever you think is consciousness. When you don't think, there is no consciousness.
