Atheist Realism?

[ronan]

Ronan:



Consciousness was all ready there? But clearly, consciousness requires perceptions. And these perceptions form the knowledge for anything to be there.

perceptions needs consciousness

consciousness maybe needs perception.

if perceptions is a property of consciousness then it is not a problem.
and whenever there is consciousness there is perceptions

Yes. If we are going for your absolute Idealism.

Consciousness does perceive...

It is misleading to say that consciousness perceives, consciousness is what permit to have perception.

but it must have some form of perception in order to do so, no?

Why so?
What would you call a form of perception?

And as knowledge comes after perception, it cannot magic perception into existence in order that it can have perception of it. No?

????

Dreams afford no new experiences.

what do you mean by new? your strange color?

The point here is that dreams afford experiences and each experiences are different from any other

If consciousness is there, it cannot be eternal. Owing to its poverty of knowledge independent of perception.

why cannot it be eternal?
any way time is perception, so time has no meaning for consciousness itself.


Please explain what do you mean by knowledge?
You use this word but I don't know what do you mean by that.

 

[ronan]

Well yes, that is what it means. As it deduces the existence of a thinker from thought. That is, not thought itself, but the thinker who thinks said thought.

A thinker is again a misleading word because it makes us think that this thinker as an identity or a personality .

I think by doubting everything we can only be sure of the existence of consciousness which can be described as : "what permits perceptions".

Maybe we should use even another word than consciousness (maybe god but not in this forum ) because some say that we are aware of our consciousness but I want to say that it is not really true because when we think we are conscious of our consciousness we are not conscious of the consciousness of consciousness.

C->P
if C->P is perceived it become a new P (C->P)
C->(C->P)
and there is always C to perceive this new P.


I don't know if you see what I mean?

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

if perceptions is a property of consciousness then it is not a problem.
and whenever there is consciousness there is perceptions

Yet it does not seem to have the capacity to create its own perceptions: As lacking perceptual data, it cannot envision Aetherage or other similar properties.

It is misleading to say that consciousness perceives, consciousness is what permit to have perception.

True, without consciousness we could not perceive. But certainly it is consciousness, at least in as much as it is used by our egos, that perceives.

Why so?
What would you call a form of perception?

Experience of a perception that contains the perceptual contents necessary for envisioning it. In essence: For a beam of Aetherage light to be perceived.

????

Before I experience Aetherage, I cannot have knowledge of it or imagine. AFter, I can.

what do you mean by new? your strange color?

Yes. No dream would have aetherage in it without we first experiencing it at waking, no?

The point here is that dreams afford experiences and each experiences are different from any other

I agree, but I don't see where that is relevant?

why cannot it be eternal?
any way time is perception, so time has no meaning for consciousness itself.

If consciousness manifests everything, it must first have knowledge of that thing...Yet it cannot have knowledge without it being pre-existent to conscoiousness and entering into perception.

Please explain what do you mean by knowledge?
You use this word but I don't know what do you mean by that.

Okay, suppose I come upon a beam of Aetherage light. AFter that, I know what Aetherage is, and I can envision it. Prior to that, I cannot. Thus I now have knowledge of a totally new form of experience which now augments my ability to envision. I can think of an Aetherage horse, car, dragon, whatever.

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

C->P
if C->P is perceived it become a new P (C->P)
C->(C->P)
and there is always C to perceive this new P.

I haven't yet grasped your reason for why another perceiver has to be there to perceive the perceiver ad nauseum.

It would seem that it could stop with just one perceiver.

 

[ronan]

Ronan:



Yet it does not seem to have the capacity to create its own perceptions: As lacking perceptual data, it cannot envision Aetherage or other similar properties.

No need of perceptual data

we cannot envision Aetherage because we are humans of now. Someone suddenly experiencing it would break its humanity. That is why now, no humans can experiencing it.
But consciousness can, because consciousness contains every perceptions. It is just that our particular ego, human ego cannot do that because else it would not be any more human.

True, without consciousness we could not perceive. But certainly it is consciousness, at least in as much as it is used by our egos, that perceives.

Ego is not consciousness. it is a perceptions
Ego is basically the experience of C->P
But this is also a perception, a content of consciousness

Experience of a perception that contains the perceptual contents necessary for envisioning it. In essence: For a beam of Aetherage light to be perceived.

Before I experience Aetherage, I cannot have knowledge of it or imagine. AFter, I can.

After/before is misleading. It is simultaneous.
You have knowledge of Aetherage when you perceive it.

Yes. No dream would have aetherage in it without we first experiencing it at waking, no?

right but every experience that you do in dream are not the same as what you do while being awake.
In fact no two experiences are the same. There is always something new in each experience.

I agree, but I don't see where that is relevant?

It was for pointing out that even in taking a materialist view, perceptions made in dreams are not based on direct interaction.
and the dreams can give you experiences that you never had before even if it is build from your past experience (this is what build you ego in the first place)

If consciousness manifests everything, it must first have knowledge of that thing...Yet it cannot have knowledge without it being pre-existent to conscoiousness and entering into perception.

Okay, suppose I come upon a beam of Aetherage light. AFter that, I know what Aetherage is, and I can envision it. Prior to that, I cannot. Thus I now have knowledge of a totally new form of experience which now augments my ability to envision. I can think of an Aetherage horse, car, dragon, whatever.

What if Knowledge is simultaneous of experience

We learn every instant

 

[ronan]

Ronan:



I haven't yet grasped your reason for why another perceiver has to be there to perceive the perceiver ad nauseum.

It would seem that it could stop with just one perceiver.

It never goes in fact,

consciousness is always there. It is just that perceptions changes,

from perceiving a red chair, you can perceive yourself perceiving the red chair.

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

No need of perceptual data

we cannot envision Aetherage because we are humans of now. Someone suddenly experiencing it would break its humanity. That is why now, no humans can experiencing it.
But consciousness can, because consciousness contains every perceptions. It is just that our particular ego, human ego cannot do that because else it would not be any more human.

But how can consciousness? It doesn't have the perception to have the knowledge. The only reason we can't imagine Aetherage is that we don't have the knowledge.

Ego is not consciousness. it is a perceptions
Ego is basically the experience of C->P
But this is also a perception, a content of consciousness

The indiviudal consciousness is certainly not a perception? How can it be? It perceives.

right but every experience that you do in dream are not the same as what you do while being awake.
In fact no two experiences are the same. There is always something new in each experience.

I agree, but again,d ont' see the relevance.

It was for pointing out that even in taking a materialist view, perceptions made in dreams are not based on direct interaction.
and the dreams can give you experiences that you never had before even if it is build from your past experience (this is what build you ego in the first place)

I agree. Dreams come purely from our mind and we interact with the contents of our consciousness equal to perceptions of the real world in a materialist/dualist thing.

What if Knowledge is simultaneous of experience

We learn every instant

It can be, indeed.

It never goes in fact,

consciousness is always there. It is just that perceptions changes,

from perceiving a red chair, you can perceive yourself perceiving the red chair.

We can imagine a third person perspective, yes. But we'd still be dealing with our own personal consciousnesses, no?

 

[ronan]

Ronan:



But how can consciousness? It doesn't have the perception to have the knowledge. The only reason we can't imagine Aetherage is that we don't have the knowledge.

Why do yous say that consciousness cannot? simply because you cannot ?

Consciousness contains all perceptions, thus contains all knowledge.

The indiviudal consciousness is certainly not a perception? How can it be? It perceives.

There is no individual consciousness per se,
There is only ego, a perception of yourself

what is perceiving is consciousness (I prefer saying that consciousness contains perceptions)

what you believe is yourself is not perceiving. it is a content of consciousness, in other word, a perception
That is why you can think about this youself.

We can imagine a third person perspective, yes. But we'd still be dealing with our own personal consciousnesses, no?

No, what I mean is that when YOU perceive a red chair
and then when YOU perceive "you" standing in front of (perceiving it) a red chair

The YOU is consciousness, the "you" is a content of consciousness that you believe is you as a conscious being

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

Why do yous say that consciousness cannot? simply because you cannot ?

Consciousness contains all perceptions, thus contains all knowledge.

But it cannot first magic those perceptions into existence if it doesn't have them. Conscious depends upon experience for its knowledge.

There is no individual consciousness per se,
There is only ego, a perception of yourself

what is perceiving is consciousness (I prefer saying that consciousness contains perceptions)

what you believe is yourself is not perceiving. it is a content of consciousness, in other word, a perception
That is why you can think about this youself.

So wait, you are saying there is only one mind?

The YOU is consciousness, the "you" is a content of consciousness that you believe is you as a conscious being

How so? I am the "sight that has no eyes" behind my eyes, am I not? The thinker which cannot be seen?

 

[ronan]

Ronan:

But it cannot first magic those perceptions into existence if it doesn't have them. Conscious depends upon experience for its knowledge.

It has them, consciousness has all perceptions
it is a property of consciousness to have perceptions

So wait, you are saying there is only one mind?

There is only one god, one consciousness, one reality (all three referring to this same thing/process)

How so? I am the "sight that has no eyes" behind my eyes, am I not? The thinker which cannot be seen?

This "I" which is behind your eyes, which cannot be seen is consciousness. it is not the "I" that you identify with yourself as a guy writing on a internet forum.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

Consciousness comprises a number of components, some are functional in terms of information retrieval and storage (memory), sensory mechanics, thinking, etc. All of which neuroscience can partly explain and with a little more time and investigation will doubtless fully explain. The other part of consciousness that operates with the functional aspects is what we can refer to as experience.

What does it mean to experience a color, or a sound, or an emotion? Science is currently having trouble even defining the issue. Certainly the reductionist methods science employs, that to this point have been overwhelmingly successful, are not adequate to explore the issue of experience. This indicates that science must take a quantum leap forward in how to deal with the experiential phenomenon. A non-reductionist approach is needed and there are some exploratory definitions in that area of where to start.

The temptation of the religionists to assert science cannot solve a problem so it must be a god is not a new predicament. And one that in the past has a 100% record of demonstrating that the premature religionist approach fails. I expect to see no difference here.

We are at the leading edge of neuroscience and faced with a difficult question and science must adapt for it to succeed. There is no basis to suspect anything different.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

Consciousness comprises a number of components, some are functional in terms of information retrieval and storage (memory), sensory mechanics, thinking, etc. All of which neuroscience can partly explain and with a little more time and investigation will doubtless fully explain. The other part of consciousness that operates with the functional aspects is what we can refer to as experience.

What does it mean to experience a color, or a sound, or an emotion? Science is currently having trouble even defining the issue. Certainly the reductionist methods science employs, that to this point have been overwhelmingly successful, are not adequate to explore the issue of experience. This indicates that science must take a quantum leap forward in how to deal with the experiential phenomenon. A non-reductionist approach is needed and there are some exploratory definitions in that area of where to start.

The temptation of the religionists to assert science cannot solve a problem so it must be a god is not a new predicament. And one that in the past has a 100% record of demonstrating that the premature religionist approach fails. I expect to see no difference here.

We are at the leading edge of neuroscience and faced with a difficult question and science must adapt for it to succeed. There is no basis to suspect anything different.

That is your view, but the point here was to show that this view is no more justified that a belief in word of Jesus.

I want to precise that I am not advocating any religion.
and in no way I put god to fill the gap.
What I tried to show is that there are even no gap, consciousness alone exists

The term religion is often used to refer to the institution that has almost nothing to do with the original belief of the prophet/mystic/philosopher.

In this regard, science because of its importance in people's mind and because it is also an institution that is now polluted by economic thinking can also be considered as a religion.
Science has its dogma, its priests, its army. of course the game is different but when I say that it is in some sense a religion is to point to the facts where it makes sense.

The best example is in fact in medicine and especially in neuroscience.

Psycho disorder are often a problem of self as a whole (way of life, habits, environment, food...)
Science want to say no, it is a problem in the brain. this medicine will help you.
Behind of course there is the big pharmaceutic industry that wait their money.

If you instead want to look at alternative like trying to heal yourself by different other techniques that instead of focusing on your brain, focus on your way of life and your habits, food.... science says: no it is not proven, then you wont get money back from your insurance, moreover, other people will look at you strangely because you do not follow the rules of the society (you ll go to hell!! they think)...

But if finally science is wrong (even partially) and we have a bigger freedom that in some way god (consciousness) could remind us, then we can get a new Copernican revolution where science who broke up with religion will broke up with another way of thinking that maybe sooner or later will also become another kind of institution (religion) again


I am not against science, I am against its ideology.
The revolution will probably start with scientists as the Copernican revolution started with theist.

in fact some scientists are already starting the revolution, what we know of the brain indicate us that that the perceived world is mostly due to our own body.
In other word our ego. There is an interelation between our body and our perceptions but it does not need to be a causal link

So maybe what you wait for when you say:

This indicates that science must take a quantum leap forward in how to deal with the experiential phenomeno

is maybe this copernican revolution

I denied the existence of brain for trying to show you that consciousness has a more concrete (real) aspect that the brain itself but I agree that the brain is representing our human nature more than any other part of our organism and it will give us insight about our relation with the world.

But the mistake is to take it as pertaining to reality and thus as governing your situation, brain and ego go together but before that your freedom is complete

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

That is your view, but the point here was to show that this view is no more justified that a belief in word of Jesus.

Science means knowledge. The scientific method is a disciplined approach that allows us to establish knowledge as opposed to fiction or fantasy. Science has a proven track record for establishing practical and demonstrable knowledge.

It has yet to be demonstrated that after 2000 years the Jesus character even existed.

I see no point of similarity.

I want to precise that I am not advocating any religion.
and in no way I put god to fill the gap.

Advocating a god concept enters the realm of religious thinking. This is also a religion forum. If you were not advocating a religious issue then why place this thread in “religion”?

What I tried to show is that there are even no gap, consciousness alone exists

The implication is that it is an entity whereas it may merely be a process that we as yet do not understand. If you mean by “alone” that it can exist separately to matter then that has no basis.

The term religion is often used to refer to the institution that has almost nothing to do with the original belief of the prophet/mystic/philosopher.

One does not have to be part of an institutional religion to adopt religious thinking. A religionist is one who assigns causes to fantasy objects, specifically god concepts or supernatural realm concepts, and variations on those themes.

In this regard, science because of its importance in people's mind and because it is also an institution that is now polluted by economic thinking can also be considered as a religion.

The scientific method, the basis of science, is not an institution. Neither is science an institution.

Science has its dogma, its priests, its army. of course the game is different but when I say that it is in some sense a religion is to point to the facts where it makes sense.

Science is brutal – it is - prove it or shut up. Religion is soft – it is believe whatever you wish – proof has no value. They are two opposites.

The best example is in fact in medicine and especially in neuroscience.

Psycho disorder are often a problem of self as a whole (way of life, habits, environment, food...)
Science want to say no, it is a problem in the brain. this medicine will help you.
Behind of course there is the big pharmaceutic industry that wait their money.

You are confusing science with economics.

If you instead want to look at alternative like trying to heal yourself by different other techniques that instead of focusing on your brain, focus on your way of life and your habits, food.... science says: no it is not proven, then you wont get money back from your insurance, moreover, other people will look at you strangely because you do not follow the rules of the society (you ll go to hell!! they think)...

If there is a case for something then you must prove it works. Science is often slow to change. This is good as it forces proponents of new ideas to work hard to prove they have something new.

But if finally science is wrong (even partially) and we have a bigger freedom that in some way god (consciousness) could remind us, then we can get a new Copernican revolution where science who broke up with religion will broke up with another way of thinking that maybe sooner or later will also become another kind of institution (religion) again

I think your train of thought here is all gibberish. Scientific discovery often revolves around creative thinkers and it usually takes several to see new ideas and reach consensus before others will follow. By their very nature such thinkers are rare so we must expect that the breakthrough in analyzing experience may take a while.

I am not against science, I am against its ideology.
The revolution will probably start with scientists as the Copernican revolution started with theist.

I tend to agree with that, although I sense that what the lay person thinks as science is a perceived ideology, but that real scientists just see problems to be solved.

I denied the existence of brain for trying to show you that consciousness has a more concrete (real) aspect that the brain itself but I agree that the brain is representing our human nature more than any other part of our organism and it will give us insight about our relation with the world.

I have little doubt that the brain is the cause of experience (the hard issue within consciousness), and I hope scientists can make the breakthrough in understanding it quickly.

But the mistake is to take it as pertaining to reality and thus as governing your situation, brain and ego go together but before that your freedom is complete.

I guess I really don’t understand what you are saying here.

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

It has them, consciousness has all perceptions
it is a property of consciousness to have perceptions

But we know from individual conscious experience that we are deprived of knowledge before perception. Accordignly, how can macroscopic consciousness hold perceptions it has not perceived?

There is only one god, one consciousness, one reality (all three referring to this same thing/process)

Well let me ask you this: How real are our minds?

This "I" which is behind your eyes, which cannot be seen is consciousness. it is not the "I" that you identify with yourself as a guy writing on a internet forum.

I agree.

 

[ronan]

Ronan:



But we know from individual conscious experience that we are deprived of knowledge before perception. Accordignly, how can macroscopic consciousness hold perceptions it has not perceived?

It perceive everything, thus it hold all perceptions.
individual consciousness is a misleading word. there is only one consciousness, perceptions in which we identify ourself are different.

Well let me ask you this: How real are our minds?

If you agree below, you should not have difficulty to see that finally we share the same consciousness. It is only that perceptions are different, our ego are different.
Thus our ego is existing in consciousness
while our consciousness is the one consciousness

if I could perceive what you perceive, I would loose my identity and I thus would loose my perceptions of myself.
Because consciousness contains all perceptions it also contains my perceptions and yours.

I agree.

because the I is not what you identify with yourself, why can you not see that this I is the same for everyone?

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

It perceive everything, thus it hold all perceptions.
individual consciousness is a misleading word. there is only one consciousness, perceptions in which we identify ourself are different.

Let me ask you this question: What are the source of perceptions?

because the I is not what you identify with yourself, why can you not see that this I is the same for everyone?

Because it isn't?

I hear only my thoughts, I will only my actions, I see only my perceptions, et cetera. "The eye behind the eye" is personal. It wills only for myself. In fact, it is "myself". It is my "soul" to borrow the common phase. It is the same process for everyone, but not the same entity. Thus my "soul" differs from yours, even if it works under the same process.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

Science means knowledge. The scientific method is a disciplined approach that allows us to establish knowledge as opposed to fiction or fantasy. Science has a proven track record for establishing practical and demonstrable knowledge.

The idea here is that it is maybe wrong.

It has yet to be demonstrated that after 2000 years the Jesus character even existed.

I see no point of similarity.

The similarity reside in the faith of reality.
in fact science proved us that we got wrong many times

Advocating a god concept enters the realm of religious thinking. This is also a religion forum. If you were not advocating a religious issue then why place this thread in “religion”?

Because at first I wanted to see atheist belief of reality.
then it get out of subject
but I still think that it has its place here because as you said religion has other meaning.

but the meaning of religion I want to use to refer to science is the institutional and dogmatic enterprise that influence society in strong ways.

The implication is that it is an entity whereas it may merely be a process that we as yet do not understand. If you mean by “alone” that it can exist separately to matter then that has no basis.

I tried to show that to say otherwise has no basis
I is the point at issue here.
We disagree at this point

One does not have to be part of an institutional religion to adopt religious thinking. A religionist is one who assigns causes to fantasy objects, specifically god concepts or supernatural realm concepts, and variations on those themes.

one meaning of religion I agree is not institutional but it is a belief in a entity beyond us like the belief in a reality in scientific thinking
Your word supernatural and fantasy are here only for discrediting religion

The scientific method, the basis of science, is not an institution. Neither is science an institution.

Are you on earth?
of course science has methodS (plural) but science is a social institution with big companies behind.
You cannot deny that.
Religions at first was also not institutions , they become and they made money.

Science is brutal – it is - prove it or shut up. Religion is soft – it is believe whatever you wish – proof has no value. They are two opposites.

Popper, Khun, Feyarbend, Lakatos
You have an utopic vision of science,
science is not that simple, it is first of all about falsification, not proof
and historiaclly we saw that even falsification is not easily recognized. Dogma are strong

You are confusing science with economics.

I am not confusing them, They are married now, you did not noticed?

If there is a case for something then you must prove it works. Science is often slow to change. This is good as it forces proponents of new ideas to work hard to prove they have something new.

I think your train of thought here is all gibberish. Scientific discovery often revolves around creative thinkers and it usually takes several to see new ideas and reach consensus before others will follow. By their very nature such thinkers are rare so we must expect that the breakthrough in analyzing experience may take a while.

The idea here is not to deny science but relativize its importance as copernican relativize the point of view.
If consciousness is more concrete more real than matter, then science (of now) is less real and concrete and should be relativize.

I tend to agree with that, although I sense that what the lay person thinks as science is a perceived ideology, but that real scientists just see problems to be solved.

there are only few real scientists and some of them are trap in the economic part of the scientific institution

I have little doubt that the brain is the cause of experience (the hard issue within consciousness), and I hope scientists can make the breakthrough in understanding it quickly.

It is here that we disagree, brain (As a made of matter) cannot cause consciousness
but I won' t say that your idea are gibberish. because I understand the pragamtic view you advocate.

I guess I really don’t understand what you are saying here.

Ego (your identity) and brain correlates,
I would say: Ego and body correlates
I would even say :
Ego and (environment+body) correlates

but because only consciousness exist, then your freedom is complete. You ar ethe one who create your identity , your ego and thus (environment+body)

 

[ronan]

Ronan:
Let me ask you this question: What are the source of perceptions?

source of perceptions is consciousness. you do not need anything else because consciousness contains all perceptions

Because it isn't?

I hear only my thoughts, I will only my actions, I see only my perceptions, et cetera. "The eye behind the eye" is personal. It wills only for myself. In fact, it is "myself". It is my "soul" to borrow the common phase. It is the same process for everyone, but not the same entity. Thus my "soul" differs from yours, even if it works under the same process.

This "I" is not consciousness, it is the "I" that you identify yourself with.
If you could have perceptions other than what you identify is yours, you would loose your identity (which is a perception).

As soon as you hear thought of someone else, you are this someone else, so you cannot stay someone and hear the though of someone else.

identities, personalities and entities are perception, they are not consciousness

there is only one consciousness and many perceptions of different identities/entities/personalities

 

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

source of perceptions is consciousness. you do not need anything else because consciousness contains all perceptions

So conscious has knowledge of these perceptions in order to create them, yes?

This "I" is not consciousness, it is the "I" that you identify yourself with.
If you could have perceptions other than what you identify is yours, you would loose your identity (which is a perception).

Any perception would be my own by definition. Any sight seen, any taste tasted, any smell smelled.

As soon as you hear thought of someone else, you are this someone else, so you cannot stay someone and hear the though of someone else.

That depends if one could think other thoughts oneself.

 

[ronan]

Ronan:



So conscious has knowledge of these perceptions in order to create them, yes?

no need of knowledge before perceptions, consciousness contains all perceptions, thus all knowledge

Any perception would be my own by definition. Any sight seen, any taste tasted, any smell smelled.

perceptions are perceptions,
- when consciousness smell there is perception of that smell,
- when consciousness perceive yourself smelling, there is perception of a entity (you) smelling some smell

That depends if one could think other thoughts oneself.

??