Still waiting on proof of one's god.

[audible]

Do you know the story of the mother who attended a passing-out parade. She said to a friend: " look, everyone is out of step but my Ronan ! "

or the time when ronan was driving home on the motorway, his friend phones and says " ronan stay of the motorway there crowded, and some nut is driving the wrong way down it" and ronan replies "theres not only one, theres hundreds of them."

 

[ronan]

or the time when ronan was driving home on the motorway, his friend phones and says " ronan stay of the motorway there crowded, and some nut is driving the wrong way down it" and ronan replies "theres not only one, theres hundreds of them."

 

[ronan]

Dude, you're not just saying we're conscious. You're saying that consciousness is something waaaaay more than what it actually is. The only reason we are having this conversation is because humans have the gift of abstract thought. That's all there is to it.

you did not even read the following of the post, please tell me if you agree:

First, why are we so sure of the existence of consciousness?
It is because of the Cartesian doubt:
cogito ergo sum.
If you doubt all your perceptions as representing the real even the perception of yourself, then you are left with the process/entity that permits you to have this perceptions.

So what we have is: consciousness exists, it is not our perceptions.

Ok?

 

[Balerion]

First, why are we so sure of the existence of consciousness?
It is because of the Cartesian doubt:
cogito ergo sum.
If you doubt all your perceptions as representing the real even the perception of yourself, then you are left with the process/entity that permits you to have this perceptions.

So what we have is: consciousness exists, it is not our perceptions.

I'm still having trouble making heads or tails of it. You're saying that consciousness is something bigger than the individual, right?

 

[ronan]

I'm still having trouble making heads or tails of it. You're saying that consciousness is something bigger than the individual, right?

Yes the individual is a perception (or a bunddle of perception), the body, the habits, the thoughts...

When I ask you who you are, you will try to describe your likes and dislikes, your appareance, your thoughts...
All that are perceptions.

Consciousness is not that. It is what makes these perception possible

 

[Balerion]

But people aren't just their perceptions. People are the sum of their parts, so to speak. The heart, the lungs, liver, blood, intestines, all that stuff. And consciousness is just the result of a functioning brain.

 

[ronan]

But people aren't just their perceptions. People are the sum of their parts, so to speak. The heart, the lungs, liver, blood, intestines, all that stuff. And consciousness is just the result of a functioning brain.

You react like a tortoise.
If you do not want at least for one time to doubt what you always accepted before, you won't be able to understand what I am saying for sure.

remember, the existence of consciousness is proved by the Cartesian doubt
The existence of brain is not justified outside our perceptions. Nobody has yet been able to justify the existence of something beyond our perception except consciousness itself. Descartes tried but failed miserably with the assumption of the existence of a good god outside reality.


Now we are left with consciousness and perceptions, all other things are assumptions.

Ok?

if agree, then we will be able to continue.

 

[Balerion]

You react like a tortoise.

And you type like a retard.

If you do not want at least for one time to doubt what you always accepted before, you won't be able to understand what I am saying for sure.

I've got an open mind, friend. But the shit you're spouting is just nonsense.

remember, the existence of consciousness is proved by the Cartesian doubt
The existence of brain is not justified outside our perceptions. Nobody has yet been able to justify the existence of something beyond our perception except consciousness itself. Descartes tried but failed miserably with the assumption of the existence of a good god outside reality.

That really is just philosophical bullshit. I'm being serious now.

if agree, then we will be able to continue.

For someone who gets on everyone else's case for not being willing to break from tradition, you're the only guy here who hasn't budged for his stance at all. I don't agree that nothing is real except for consciousness. Consciousness is a result of brain activity. That's why when the brain does, you are no longer conscious. Shit, all the brain has to do is suffer trauma and you're no longer conscious. The proof is right there.

So after you try to type your way around that one, feel free to fuck off.

 

[Myles]

We don't need Descartes to tell us we are conscious; we know that already. His Cogito relates to existence, not just consciousness, Cogito ergo sum = I think, therefore I am. Like the rest of us he took consciousness for granted otherwise who or what would have pursued the method of doubt. BTW, strictly speaking he was only entitled to say " there is thinking"

 

[ronan]

And you type like a retard.

For someone who gets on everyone else's case for not being willing to break from tradition, you're the only guy here who hasn't budged for his stance at all. I don't agree that nothing is real except for consciousness. Consciousness is a result of brain activity.

Please doubt them at least, it is the only think I ask.
You will see why if you just make this effort.

That's why when the brain does, you are no longer conscious. Shit, all the brain has to do is suffer trauma and you're no longer conscious. The proof is right there.

no consciousness, no brain.

consciousness is never interrupted, when I wake up I only see that time jumped and that my body state changed abruptly from one position to another.
On your side, you only see me falling, but you cannot prove that I am not conscious. Also on your side there is consciousness.

We can never experience unconsciousness. (by definition)

So if you want to be a empiricist, you should realize that.


The discussion is again going nowhere because you do not want to take the stance that the existence of a brain beyond your perception is false.
You have no reason to at least not try with that because nobody can justify the existence of a brain beyond perception. nobody.

 

[ronan]

We don't need Descartes to tell us we are conscious; we know that already. His Cogito relates to existence, not just consciousness, Cogito ergo sum = I think, therefore I am. Like the rest of us he took consciousness for granted otherwise who or what would have pursued the method of doubt. BTW, strictly speaking he was only entitled to say " there is thinking"

You did not understand Descartes then.
Je pense donc je suis = I think therefore I am
The 'I' is not the body, the habits of descartes because all that is perceptions also.
The 'I' that Descartes talk is consciousness itself.
But he believed there was many 'I' consciousness different than his 'I', different souls.
But he failed to justify this. He tried with the assumption of the existence of a good god that created a world arround with different soul and give human the ability to know the world.

Also, when he was using the word thinking (penser in french) he was referring to consciousness.

so he was only entitled to say: there is consciousness!

Read him.

You are maybe a butterfly dreaming of being a human (Chuang Tzu)

 

[Balerion]

The discussion is again going nowhere because you do not want to take the stance that the existence of a brain beyond your perception is false.
You have no reason to at least not try with that because nobody can justify the existence of a brain beyond perception. nobody.

I shouldn't have to take that stance. I've already told you that you're full of shit. Seriously, this is not reality you're talking about here. These are nifty ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality.

no consciousness, no brain.

consciousness is never interrupted, when I wake up I only see that time jumped and that my body state changed abruptly from one position to another.
On your side, you only see me falling, but you cannot prove that I am not conscious. Also on your side there is consciousness.

We can never experience unconsciousness. (by definition)

So if you want to be a empiricist, you should realize that.

 

[Myles]

You did not understand Descartes then.
Je pense donc je suis = I think therefore I am
The 'I' is not the body, the habits of descartes because all that is perceptions also.
The 'I' that Descartes talk is consciousness itself.
But he believed there was many 'I' consciousness different than his 'I', different souls.
But he failed to justify this. He tried with the assumption of the existence of a good god that created a world arround with different soul and give human the ability to know the world.

Also, when he was using the word thinking (penser in french) he was referring to consciousness.

so he was only entitled to say: there is consciousness!


I have read Descartes but I disagree with your interpretation. He was only entitled to conclude that there "is thinking". Thinking is what a brain does.

What on earth has "penser", to think, got to do with consciousness other than in the sense that I may be conscious that I am thinking. The terms are not interchangeable.

 

[ronan]

I have read Descartes but I disagree with your interpretation. He was only entitled to conclude that there "is thinking". Thinking is what a brain does.

What on earth has "penser", to think, got to do with consciousness other than in the sense that I may be conscious that I am thinking. The terms are not interchangeable.

Reread Descartes is the only thing I can tell you.

Anyway use your experience and check with yourself: if thinking is perceiving a rose, then I agree with you but the term consciousness is better to express what we do no matter how much thinking we do.
It was in this meaning that Descartes use the word "penser".

The only thing we can say for sure is that there is consciousness.

Maybe you want to say that there is thinking but not consciousness?
In this case I disagree and Descartes also would disagree.

 

[geeser]

Ronan(troll)
I tried the nice way the only conclusion to your extreme arrogance, is you must be a Troll.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant messages in an online community.

It cant possibly be you, thats wrong can it.

WOW! your one cocksure arrogant tnuc.


Guys! don't feed the troll.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I shouldn't have to take that stance. I've already told you that you're full of shit. Seriously, this is not reality you're talking about here. These are nifty ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Perhaps ronan and pharoahmoan should get it on, they both talk aloof, self-ego inflating nonsense and will go nowhere with their logic and rationality...

Unless its somewhere you can't see,hear,touch,feel,smell..

Perhaps P/moan can enlighten ronan about his 13.7 billion year existence since before the big bang as a consciousness that has continuoulsy been reborn.......maybe they are the same person lol

 

[Balerion]

What's funny is that these people don't even realize that they are arguing that their senses are lying to them. When you go blind, you're not really blind, all the lights just went out, is all.

 

[ronan]

What's funny is that these people don't even realize that they are arguing that their senses are lying to them. When you go blind, you're not really blind, all the lights just went out, is all.

Not true JDawg, I live in this world as you live in it, but I just relativise its existence because of logic.

But if you do not even want to follow just a little the logical argument, then it is your choice.

 

[Balerion]

Not true JDawg, I live in this world as you live in it, but I just relativise its existence because of logic.

No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. You can spend 90 posts telling everyone that what they see is an illusion, and then turn around and say you're just "one of the guys".

There is no logic to your argument, friend.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

You are maybe a butterfly dreaming of being a human (Chuang Tzu)

Wasn't that first by lao tzu, I forget the daodejing verse let me check, by the way I understand what your saying to Jd.


peace.