Atheist Realism?

Do you mean that as imagination has less correspondence to actual reality, your happiness with life decreases?
hapiness wont decrease because we are here saying that if it is the truth, in this case, it was the truth since I was born, the world thus won't change

it is thus in the possibilities in general, not mine. the reality would have less possibilities.

Do you find that mystery is where you tend to invest your hope?
no, hope is in the esperance to have better. it is not in mistery, it is in the lack of anything, knowledge, matter.... we hope to have, we hope to be, we hope in something that is not now and that we don't have now.

I value truth over emotional satisfaction (delight). I would defend something true and emotionally neutral over something not true and emotionally fantastic.
You beg the question here, because we defined it as fantastic because we define it that science is true, it is probably becaus eyou are so sure of your current belief that for you there is nothing new under the sky, thus a kind of sadness, a monotony about you own universe
Simply because it would violate some knowns. Truth is the correspondence of an idea to actual reality, evidence is a demonstration of that correspondence, and all objective evidence to date doesn't support your assertion.
You do not answer the question, the point was to imagine the view true.
 
Ronan:
This is not answering the question. You agreed that we required sensory stimulation to imagine certain categories of existence. You also agreed that this worked on the level of the "Mind of God". As such, you are left with a dilemma: How can consciousness create the perceptions it knows nothing about?
I told you perceptionq dn knowledge are simultaneous, one and the same.

sensory stimulus? you mean brain and neurons...?

We do not need anything to perceive. Everything is perceived.

What stuck you in your perception is because you identify yourself with your perceptions

This doesn't mean that unconsciousness cannot exist. What brought consciousness about? What is it necessity? How is it eternal?
unconsciousness can exist but it won't affect consciousness and thus perceptions. In other words it has no role for the perceived world

consciousness is a necissity for perception, the only thing we can experience.
eternal because the notion of time is a perception.

Is it not the perceiver?
No
 
Ronan:

I told you perceptionq dn knowledge are simultaneous, one and the same.

sensory stimulus? you mean brain and neurons...?

We do not need anything to perceive. Everything is perceived.

Okay: KNowledge and perception is one in the same. But how does Consciousness Perceive that which is not all ready there? The knowledge of Consciousness depends upon that knowledge coming from perception for certain basic categories. As such, it either created those, in which case it would seemingly contradict its nature, or it must have met those independent of its actions, which dismisses consciousness as the source of all things.

consciousness is a necissity for perception, the only thing we can experience.
eternal because the notion of time is a perception.

Time is a perception? And what is meant by this?

Basically: Why is there this Consciousness to begin with? What is its source? What is it?

No[/quote

Then how awareness of perception?
 
hapiness wont decrease because we are here saying that if it is the truth, in this case, it was the truth since I was born, the world thus won't change

it is thus in the possibilities in general, not mine. the reality would have less possibilities.

Why would reality having less possibilities make you feel restricted?

no, hope is in the esperance to have better. it is not in mistery, it is in the lack of anything, knowledge, matter.... we hope to have, we hope to be, we hope in something that is not now and that we don't have now.

Do you presently have hope for something when you die?

You beg the question here, because we defined it as fantastic because we define it that science is true, it is probably becaus eyou are so sure of your current belief that for you there is nothing new under the sky, thus a kind of sadness, a monotony about you own universe

I've made a general observation that truth (outside the scope of interhuman interaction) tends to be very emotionally neutral. Of course people whom appreciate truth would enjoy it and it sounds like you might be insinuating that what you might consider dull and monotinous truth is beyond other people's ability to appreciate.

You do not answer the question, the point was to imagine the view true.

Maybe you didn't undersand the answer... which is I would be surprised that your view is true because up to that point of 'being shown' it is true, reality would have supported something very different. It's like following a deer trail only to find a bag of marbles at the end.
 
Why would reality having less possibilities make you feel restricted?
no
reality having less possibilties will giev reality less possibilities, that ' s it. It would feel less wondefull to what I feel now about reality.
Do you presently have hope for something when you die?
sometimes I have hopes but I usually try to do not have ones and try to live with what I have and what I am.

a life after death won't be any more my life.

because consciousness is intemporal, it always exist, and there is always perceptions, thus other lifes. But they are not mines.

I've made a general observation that truth (outside the scope of interhuman interaction) tends to be very emotionally neutral. Of course people whom appreciate truth would enjoy it and it sounds like you might be insinuating that what you might consider dull and monotinous truth is beyond other people's ability to appreciate.
ok ,
for you truth is not wondefull, so.
Me I feel that truth (at least what I consider to be) is a feeling that I like.
Even in the case of discovering a new solution to a problem or in teh case of the exdistence of consciousness that seem to be beyond human expression.

Maybe you didn't undersand the answer... which is I would be surprised that your view is true because up to that point of 'being shown' it is true, reality would have supported something very different. It's like following a deer trail only to find a bag of marbles at the end.
No, if it is true, it would means that it was always true, thus what you see is the result of this truth.
to say that it reality would have been different is to not accept the view as true.

But saying that only consciousness cause perception does not change anythign of your perception.

the only thing that change is the possibilities of perceiving things that you would not imagine possible in your framework. it brings more possibilities but do not contradict the actual experience you have and had in the past. else it would be false.

so please consider again
 
Ronan:



Okay: KNowledge and perception is one in the same. But how does Consciousness Perceive that which is not all ready there? The knowledge of Consciousness depends upon that knowledge coming from perception for certain basic categories. As such, it either created those, in which case it would seemingly contradict its nature, or it must have met those independent of its actions, which dismisses consciousness as the source of all things.
it perceive everything: you in teh future, yiou in the past, a banana ion the moon in 2000 years... evrtyhing.

the proprieties of consciousness is to contains all perceptions. categories are perception also. it does need to creates them.

Time is a perception? And what is meant by this?
Time is a perception of continuity and changement.
Consciousness contaisn everything, your life as a child, your life as now, your life in the future, you perceive time making you a adult with some memories.

Time do not exist outside consciousness.
time as no meanign for consciousness like in the theory of relativity time has no meanign for the 4 dimensional space-time manifold.

thus no idea of creation outside consciousness

Basically: Why is there this Consciousness to begin with? What is its source? What is it?
consciousness is necessary for perception, for perceivong your life, my life...
No source,
no way to describe it, just a logical concept that explain your perception
a necessity for perception: no consciousness, no perception


No[/quote

Then how awareness of perception?
awareness of perception is another perception, consciousness is not perceivable it is the thing that makes you perceive
 
no
reality having less possibilties will giev reality less possibilities, that ' s it. It would feel less wondefull to what I feel now about reality.

Is less 'wonderful' all you would feel? Would you care at all about any impressionable person whom you had formerly sold your view to as being true?


sometimes I have hopes but I usually try to do not have ones and try to live with what I have and what I am.

Unusual response but it's actually alot healthier than the deep hope investment into the paranormal found in many theists.

a life after death won't be any more my life.

because consciousness is intemporal, it always exist, and there is always perceptions, thus other lifes. But they are not mines.

Well, you still have yet to provide any evidence for that claim.

ok ,
for you truth is not wondefull, so.

Truth tends to be pretty neutral by itself (again with the exception of interpersonal relationships). When it is associated with a personal investment of some sort it tends to elicit emotional reaction and it's not always going to be good. For example, the truth of mosquitos biting you on a hike is not going to bring someone pleasure while discovering a new property of light would. That is because of the personal investement involved in each. Other things like the knowlede that people collect energy aren't likely to result in emotional reaction because of no personal investment.

Me I feel that truth (at least what I consider to be) is a feeling that I like.
Even in the case of discovering a new solution to a problem or in teh case of the exdistence of consciousness that seem to be beyond human expression.

I bet you wouldn't like it was true that you caught herpes.


No, if it is true, it would means that it was always true, thus what you see is the result of this truth.

I agree. What I am saying is that evidence up to that point of seeing your view as true would have supported something different... just as it does now outside of this thought experiment.

to say that it reality would have been different is to not accept the view as true.

I am not saying that. I am saying that the EVIDENCE would have supported a different model of reality up to the point of your view being demonstrated as being true.

But saying that only consciousness cause perception does not change anythign of your perception.

the only thing that change is the possibilities of perceiving things that you would not imagine possible in your framework. it brings more possibilities but do not contradict the actual experience you have and had in the past. else it would be false.

so please consider again

The notion of consciousness causing perception doesn't make any sense to me; however, if it ended up being true I would still feel surprised for the reasons I specified. It doesn't matter if my perception doesn't change in that model... I would still be very surprised and that's not an outcome you can influence (you appear to be trying to do so for some reason).
 
Is less 'wonderful' all you would feel? Would you care at all about any impressionable person whom you had formerly sold your view to as being true?
?

Unusual response but it's actually alot healthier than the deep hope investment into the paranormal found in many theists.
It is not unusual, please read many mystics such as Shankara, Krishna...
you seem to only know some theism, before making such generalization, you should open your mind to other believes that yours

Well, you still have yet to provide any evidence for that claim.

evidences?

did you ever experiences unconsciousness?
no because it is impossible, you only have a feeling of having been unconscious but it is not unconsciousness, only a realization that time (changements) has jump.

furthermore, time is a perception, it has no meaning for consciousness like in the theory of relativity time has no meaning outside the space-time manifold

Truth tends to be pretty neutral by itself (again with the exception of interpersonal relationships). When it is associated with a personal investment of some sort it tends to elicit emotional reaction and it's not always going to be good. For example, the truth of mosquitos biting you on a hike is not going to bring someone pleasure while discovering a new property of light would. That is because of the personal investement involved in each. Other things like the knowlede that people collect energy aren't likely to result in emotional reaction because of no personal investment.

for me, whenever I found truth, I found it wonderfull,

I bet you wouldn't like it was true that you caught herpes.

The truth about herpes is probably a truth deep inside you and your habits that made you caught this disease. In that sense when you know it you would be able to heal it. that is wonderfull.

I agree. What I am saying is that evidence up to that point of seeing your view as true would have supported something different... just as it does now outside of this thought experiment.

no it would have not supported something different, everything you see can be explained by the view I advocate


The notion of consciousness causing perception doesn't make any sense to me;
can we have perceptions without consciousness?
if you answer yes, why does it makes no sense to you that consciousness is causing perceptions?
if you answer no, please explain me how
however, if it ended up being true I would still feel surprised for the reasons I specified. It doesn't matter if my perception doesn't change in that model... I would still be very surprised and that's not an outcome you can influence (you appear to be trying to do so for some reason).
ok
 

I'll paraphrase, how would it make you feel in this scenario knowing that your claim of truth was accepted by some other people as truth (but was ultimately incorrect)? That effectively means you lied to them.

It is not unusual, please read many mystics such as Shankara, Krishna...
you seem to only know some theism, before making such generalization, you should open your mind to other believes that yours

It is unusual because the behavior is heavily influenced by genetics. I would strongly speculate that for any religious group there will always be a segment whom invests hope in fantasy. Mystics (as well as most sources of philiosophy) aren't valuable to me.

evidences?

Yep, evidence for the claim that consciousness is non-temporal and always exists.

did you ever experiences unconsciousness?
no because it is impossible, you only have a feeling of having been unconscious but it is not unconsciousness, only a realization that time (changements) has jump.

On a sidenote, unconsciousness can also be observed in others (or yourself if you have a video camera).

furthermore, time is a perception, it has no meaning for consciousness like in the theory of relativity time has no meaning outside the space-time manifold

Nobody knows what time is (that includes you). Time of course has meaning in any branch of physics. Meaning is the relationship between two or more variables. Outside of space-time, time would still have meaning... it would just be a different relationship. As for consciousness and time, I have no idea what you are talking about; however, one thing is certain... your consciousness is transient in space-time.

for me, whenever I found truth, I found it wonderfull,

Truth: Humans tourture and kill other humans. Do you find that wonderful?


The truth about herpes is probably a truth deep inside you and your habits that made you caught this disease. In that sense when you know it you would be able to heal it. that is wonderfull.

Herpes is presently incurable. If you think you can cure it magically, I would be happy to inject you with a strain and watch your magic.


no it would have not supported something different, everything you see can be explained by the view I advocate

Except there is no evidence for it so it really doesn't explain anything.

can we have perceptions without consciousness?
if you answer yes, why does it makes no sense to you that consciousness is causing perceptions?
if you answer no, please explain me how

Consciousness and perceptions are integrated. One doesn't cause the other. Perception is the translated stimulus while consciousness is an epiphenomena.
 
I'll paraphrase, how would it make you feel in this scenario knowing that your claim of truth was accepted by some other people as truth (but was ultimately incorrect)? That effectively means you lied to them.
I lost th track of your question
It is unusual because the behavior is heavily influenced by genetics. I would strongly speculate that for any religious group there will always be a segment whom invests hope in fantasy. Mystics (as well as most sources of philiosophy) aren't valuable to me.
It is not important if there are valuable for you or not but you are saying that it is unusual and tell you that there is many mystic that share this view.
do you believe in life after death? if not why do you say that it is unusual?

Yep, evidence for the claim that consciousness is non-temporal and always exists.
because time is a perception (content of consciousness)
On a sidenote, unconsciousness can also be observed in others (or yourself if you have a video camera).
no you never experience unconsciousness, you assume unconsciousness. only, no justification possible.

Others are perceptions, these perceptions require consciousness
You can never experience unconsciousness.
Nobody knows what time is (that includes you). Time of course has meaning in any branch of physics. Meaning is the relationship between two or more variables. Outside of space-time, time would still have meaning... it would just be a different relationship. As for consciousness and time, I have no idea what you are talking about; however, one thing is certain...
no need to know what time is, time is a percpetion. hence it is inside consciousness not outside. so no time for consciousness

your consciousness is transient in space-time.
the content of consciousness is transient: perceptions.

you seem to have not understand the most important point I made

Truth: Humans tourture and kill other humans. Do you find that wonderful?
The truth is deeper: survival instinct, protection of family, on a large scale it is wonderful. That is life: death is par of life, it does not make it ugly.

Herpes is presently incurable. If you think you can cure it magically, I would be happy to inject you with a strain and watch your magic.
Some people do not have any mor ethe consequences of it. it can be inside but it does not matter if it does not make anything to you.

Except there is no evidence for it so it really doesn't explain anything.

it explains but you seem to not have understood (regarding your saying that you did not see what I was saying about time).

Consciousness and perceptions are integrated. One doesn't cause the other. Perception is the translated stimulus while consciousness is an epiphenomena.
:p
justify please

consciousness an epiphenomena ?
please explain me what is an epiphenomena :p
Many people talk about that but we have nothing equivalent to describe what it would be.
give explanation
 
I lost th track of your question

Sorry, I'll try again. You are issuing a claim that your 'view' is true and somewhere out there an impressionable individual has accepted your claim. In the scenario being discussed, science demonstrates that your 'view' is 100% false and that means it was a lie (becuase you originally claimed it as being truth). How would you feel knowing that you lied to everyone and that lie was accepted as truth by at least one impressionable person?

It is not important if there are valuable for you or not but you are saying that it is unusual and tell you that there is many mystic that share this view.
do you believe in life after death? if not why do you say that it is unusual?

Nope, I don't believe in life after death; however, that is unusual because most of the worlds population does. Face it, it's an attractive idea.

because time is a perception (content of consciousness)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. What you could say perhaps is that time might be an illusion as we might exist in every possible past / future scenario simultaneously and it is only our memory in any given moment that gives us a sense of linear change.

no you never experience unconsciousness, you assume unconsciousness. only, no justification possible.

Others are perceptions, these perceptions require consciousness
You can never experience unconsciousness.

I never said you experience unconsciousness so I am not sure what purpose reiterating that point is. What I can tell you is that a person in an unconsicous state is very real and can be observed.


no need to know what time is, time is a percpetion. hence it is inside consciousness not outside. so no time for consciousness

No need to know what time is, but here is what it is? You're not making any sense.

the content of consciousness is transient: perceptions.

you seem to have not understand the most important point I made

Without a functioning brain, a cross section of spacetime on Earth is not conscious. Functioning brains are transient; hence, your consciousness is transient.


The truth is deeper: survival instinct, protection of family, on a large scale it is wonderful. That is life: death is par of life, it does not make it ugly.

If you watched your mother being flayed alive, would you feel wonderful?


Some people do not have any mor ethe consequences of it. it can be inside but it does not matter if it does not make anything to you.

Are you implying that if I injected you with herpes then you would magically become asymptomatic?


it explains but you seem to not have understood (regarding your saying that you did not see what I was saying about time).

I saw what you said about time. It's another unsupported claim on the heap. If you issue a claim of truth then you are saying that reality corresponds to your idea. Objective evidence is a demonstration of that correspondence (i.e. showing that realitya agrees with your idea). That's what you need to show.

:p
justify please

consciousness an epiphenomena ?
please explain me what is an epiphenomena :p
Many people talk about that but we have nothing equivalent to describe what it would be.
give explanation

An epiphenomenon is a side-effect of a primary phenomenon. For example, a phenomenon would a rhinovirus living inside of you. An epihenomenon would sneezing.

In the case of consciousness, the phenomenon would be a functioning brain. An epiphenomenon would be consciousness.
 
Sorry, I'll try again. You are issuing a claim that your 'view' is true and somewhere out there an impressionable individual has accepted your claim. In the scenario being discussed, science demonstrates that your 'view' is 100% false and that means it was a lie (becuase you originally claimed it as being truth). How would you feel knowing that you lied to everyone and that lie was accepted as truth by at least one impressionable person?
You mean that if your view is right, mine is false and because I am saying it is true, I am lying.
First lie is usually intentional else it is just a mistake.
Second science doesn't demonstrate that my view is false, it is compatible with it. My view just relativise science but doe snot make it incompatible.

It follows that if I am wrong, my mistake is not big, thus I won't feel like a make people sad or anything else bad. I think on the contrary, it helps anyway to live in this world because I do not deny its relative existence.


Nope, I don't believe in life after death; however, that is unusual because most of the worlds population does. Face it, it's an attractive idea.
First for me there is always life after death. But I do not believe that it is myself who rebirth, in other word after MY death, there are other life (but not mine).
Attractive idea? It depends: heaven or hell?

Just saying it doesn't make it true. What you could say perhaps is that time might be an illusion as we might exist in every possible past / future scenario simultaneously and it is only our memory in any given moment that gives us a sense of linear change.
It is true, time is a perception, to say that it is something else also, you have to prove it but you cannot because you will always use perceptions to sustain your claim.
I never said you experience unconsciousness so I am not sure what purpose reiterating that point is. What I can tell you is that a person in an unconsicous state is very real and can be observed.
no, you assume he is unconscious but you cannot know that.

No need to know what time is, but here is what it is? You're not making any sense.
Because time is a perception it is not outside consciousness, hence it does not affect consciousness
Without a functioning brain, a cross section of spacetime on Earth is not conscious. Functioning brains are transient; hence, your consciousness is transient.
Again you use brain, but brain is a perception
If you watched your mother being flayed alive, would you feel wonderful?
no, I would feel sad do not have being able to see the truth before.

For me truth is beyond bad or good, it is something that transcends our capacity of expression. Until we let go our ego we cannot really see truth.
disease, death if seen as bad or good, is because we do not see truth.
Are you implying that if I injected you with herpes then you would magically become asymptomatic?
no you have to find out why you injected this, for what reason.
maybe you won't heal anyway but you will be able to live with it.
I saw what you said about time. It's another unsupported claim on the heap. If you issue a claim of truth then you are saying that reality corresponds to your idea. Objective evidence is a demonstration of that correspondence (i.e. showing that realitya agrees with your idea). That's what you need to show.
It agrees with my idea because it does not contradict it.
An epiphenomenon is a side-effect of a primary phenomenon. For example, a phenomenon would a rhinovirus living inside of you. An epihenomenon would sneezing.
Here you see a causality because you build a biological model of it.
And in this case these two phenoemena are empirically testable while consciousness is not. if you say it will, it will only be as a brain test, not as consciousness test
In the case of consciousness, the phenomenon would be a functioning brain. An epiphenomenon would be consciousness.
yes but you do not explain how, that is the problem!
epiphenomena is not explanation, it is the model that link the two.
 
ronan you are an imbecile do you know what your actually writing, lay of the drugs man they f%&k you up.
 
You mean that if your view is right, mine is false and because I am saying it is true, I am lying.
First lie is usually intentional else it is just a mistake.
Second science doesn't demonstrate that my view is false, it is compatible with it. My view just relativise science but doe snot make it incompatible.

It follows that if I am wrong, my mistake is not big, thus I won't feel like a make people sad or anything else bad. I think on the contrary, it helps anyway to live in this world because I do not deny its relative existence.

So in this scenario, even though you made a claim of absolute truth, you wouldn't consider yourself lying because you weren't intentionally trying to deceive others? That is debatable; however, if that were the case that would have meant you were delusional.


First for me there is always life after death. But I do not believe that it is myself who rebirth, in other word after MY death, there are other life (but not mine).

You mean people will be born after you die? Way to state the obvious.

Attractive idea? It depends: heaven or hell?

Either. It's an attractive idea that your specific consciousness would persist after death.

It is true, time is a perception, to say that it is something else also, you have to prove it but you cannot because you will always use perceptions to sustain your claim.

It is common knowledge that perception is heavily resultant from external stimulus so it is a-ok to use to support a theory. Consquently, I don't know what time is so I can't issue any claim about it (only speculation, hypothesis, and theory).

no, you assume he is unconscious but you cannot know that.

Yes I can. By interviewing the subject and seeing the correlation of response vs. brain activity during sleep.


Because time is a perception it is not outside consciousness, hence it does not affect consciousness

I still dont' know what you mean about 'time' being a 'perception'. Show some objective evidence for it. You might be able to get away with 'time might be an illusion'.

Again you use brain, but brain is a perception

Brain is label given to an existent construct in space-time. It exists whether or not a person perceives it.

no, I would feel sad do not have being able to see the truth before.

For me truth is beyond bad or good, it is something that transcends our capacity of expression. Until we let go our ego we cannot really see truth.
disease, death if seen as bad or good, is because we do not see truth.

'Good' and 'bad' don't objectively exist so I would agree that bias towards judging things as 'good' or 'bad' can prevent people from comprehending truth.

I also think you're not being honest with yourself. If you saw your mother flayed alive I think you would feel something very different and for very different reasons. The point being that truth is not always going to leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling as you claimed it would for you.


no you have to find out why you injected this, for what reason.
maybe you won't heal anyway but you will be able to live with it.

Wow, you just did some major backtracking...but thats ok. If you're admitting that you cannot magically cure herpes or magically keep it asymptomatic then are finally aligning your thoughts to reality.

It agrees with my idea because it does not contradict it.

Are you joking? I can turn your consciousness on and off like a light switch with chemicals and a synringe.

Here you see a causality because you build a biological model of it.
And in this case these two phenoemena are empirically testable while consciousness is not. if you say it will, it will only be as a brain test, not as consciousness test

The results of consciousness are testable.

yes but you do not explain how, that is the problem!
epiphenomena is not explanation, it is the model that link the two.

You mean I don't explain how billions of neurons acting as a multitiude of supercomuters results in consciousness? Of course not, that isn't known yet. What is known is that it is the 'hardware' responsible for consciousness and if it is removed then consciousness disappears.

Also, your statement made something very clear. A gap in knowledge for you is an opportunity to fill the void with fantasy. It's a human behavior that has been dubbed 'God of the gaps'.
 
So in this scenario, even though you made a claim of absolute truth, you wouldn't consider yourself lying because you weren't intentionally trying to deceive others? That is debatable; however, if that were the case that would have meant you were delusional.
delusional like you if you were false about what you affirm. thatd oes not add anything else
You mean people will be born after you die? Way to state the obvious.
Yes, it was indeed obvious
Either. It's an attractive idea that your specific consciousness would persist after death.
not in hell
Yes I can. By interviewing the subject and seeing the correlation of response vs. brain activity during sleep.
No you cannot , you have to assume that brain activity cause consciousness.
I still dont' know what you mean about 'time' being a 'perception'. Show some objective evidence for it. You might be able to get away with 'time might be an illusion'.
time is a perception is the minimum truth that you can say about time.
All other are speculation like you said.
Brain is label given to an existent construct in space-time. It exists whether or not a person perceives it.
no it is also a perception, remmber the dream, but you won' t accept it, so jump this and live happily

I also think you're not being honest with yourself. If you saw your mother flayed alive I think you would feel something very different and for very different reasons. The point being that truth is not always going to leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling as you claimed it would for you.
I would be sad I told you.
But for mke truth is wether relative (to a set of axiom or belief) or absolute.
Absolute truth is beyond good or bad. Because I am a human with an ego, I am not in absolute truth but a relative one.if my mother die I will be sad.
Wow, you just did some major backtracking...but thats ok. If you're admitting that you cannot magically cure herpes or magically keep it asymptomatic then are finally aligning your thoughts to reality.
No it is not a backtraching,
First remember I said that you can erase its symptom which is actually possible.
Many people have herpes but do not have any effect. It doe snot always surfaced on the skin.

But I also say that you do not need to make it disappear (on the skin) to make you happy: you can live happy with a cancer, an herpes, a cut leg...

Are you joking? I can turn your consciousness on and off like a light switch with chemicals and a synringe.
You assume it will. I never experiences unconsciousness.
If you will I think time will jump but I ll never experience unconsciousness.
On your side you only see consciously my behavior changing.
consciousness is always there.
The results of consciousness are testable.
huh?
you mean a brain that work in a wakeful state or dreaming. It is the brain that is testable, not consciousnes itself.
Please read Harnad.
You mean I don't explain how billions of neurons acting as a multitiude of supercomuters results in consciousness? Of course not, that isn't known yet. What is known is that it is the 'hardware' responsible for consciousness and if it is removed then consciousness disappears.
no it is not neither because you have only its verbal report or a b brain activity report at disposition. Nothign about consciousness. Subjective view is not accessible

Also, your statement made something very clear. A gap in knowledge for you is an opportunity to fill the void with fantasy. It's a human behavior that has been dubbed 'God of the gaps'.
it is not a gap in knowledge that I fill. sorry. Please read the thread, I answered this easy attack.
 
ronan,

You are trying very hard not to understand things that are well known and rather self evident. Every atheist position I have noted in this thread is supported by evidence and your position is not. The only truth coming from your arguments ia s demonstration of your psychological needs, but beyond that there is nothing of value. I'm done with this thread.
 
ronan, I did try to warn you, so I'll try again, stay off the drugs, it f^&ks you up.
 
ronan,

You are trying very hard not to understand things that are well known and rather self evident. Every atheist position I have noted in this thread is supported by evidence and your position is not. The only truth coming from your arguments ia s demonstration of your psychological needs, but beyond that there is nothing of value. I'm done with this thread.

I have no special psychological need, do not worry for me.

You have a strange definition of self evidence.
consciousness exist is self evident but "brain cause consciousness" is not.

I understand you stop here because you could not justify your assumption. I asked everybody here, nobody could justify "brain cause consciousness" , some try to use the analogy of software but failed.

You should realize that it is not possible and see that the alternative are dualism or consciousness monism.

but dualism fails also, thus only consciousness monism is acceptable.

Maybe you ll realize this later. It will makes you see the world in a more wonderful way, I bet.

try can get out of your dream, like this you ll maybe be able to see that it is only a dream. ;)

Best of luck Crunchy_Cat
 
it is too late :)
Learning is the strongest drug but it does help.

Try it, you won't be disappointed ;)
If I need to learn gibberish, and lunacy, I will join the school of Ronan.
But has of now, I am very happy with reality, thanks anyway.
just remember to stay off the drugs.
 
Back
Top