Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[RandFan]

...the fact is that our minds only exist in our minds as for the existence of everything else; well you can pay that no mind if you want but that is not advisable. If you think a hammer does not exist (except in your mind) then try to think the hammer away as you bash yourself in the head with it (or have someone else do it if they don’t mind) until you prove the hammer does not exist, your mind does not exist or you finally choose to mind the existence of the hammer (and perhaps the other person) outside of your mind and bashing you in the head.

I'm not arguing idealism but your little experiment doesn't disprove idealism. FTR: I'm neither idealist nor a solipsist. I'm not even nihilist.

I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind.

Having debated folks like Lifegazer at length using similar arguments (I prefer the idea of putting someone in a room without food, water or toilet until they accept reality. Less violent than your hammer example.)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

How does “something to appreciate it” constitute nothing?

It doesn't. The lack of a conscience renders the difference between something and nothing moot.

I'm a materialist. I accept a material reality. That said, I can't prove a material reality. Neither can you even if you do bash your skull in with a hammer. Further, without consciousness the difference between existence and non existence is inconsequential. You can call it clap trap but it is inarguable.

 

[Twiler]

Yeah, that's the point. Setting aside idealism for the moment, existence is only a state of mind. Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds. Something isn't any different than nothing unless there is something to appreciate it.

I'm pretty sure the point of materialism is that the world DOES NOT only exist in our minds.

I'd say the existence of sensory data indicates that there exists a world outside our minds.

 

[RandFan]

I'm pretty sure the point of materialism is that the world DOES NOT only exist in our minds.

Yes. That IS the point. And yours?

I'd say the existence of sensory data indicates that there exists a world outside our minds.

Doesn't prove it.

 

[Twiler]

Did you not state:

Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds.

 

[RandFan]

Did you not state:

Yes. Look closer at the statment. It's an existential statement. I know it appears contradictory and a bit of a "depnds on what the definition of 'is' is".

Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds.

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

 

[Twiler]

Yes. Look closer at the statment. It's an existential statement. I know it appears contradictory and a bit of a "depnds on what the definition of 'is' is".



Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

It depends on your definitions. If you accept that only the activities of conscious lifeforms are meaningful, then yes, existence is meaningless without consciousness.

Some people might argue that a universe without consciousness is meaningful, or that any universe is meaningless.

 

[RandFan]

...a universe without consciousness is meaningful...

I'm not even sure what that means. Meaningful to what? Meaning is a conscious construct. Take away consciousness and you have no construct.

 

[Twiler]

People could consider a hypothetical universe with no consciousness and attribute meaning to it.

 

[The Man]

I'm not arguing idealism but your little experiment doesn't disprove idealism. FTR: I'm neither idealist nor a solipsist. I'm not even nihilist.

I wasn’t claiming that it proves or disproves any philosophy just that it proves it is a test not worth executing, since it terminates with your termination.

Having debated folks like Lifegazer at length using similar arguments (I prefer the idea of putting someone in a room without food, water or toilet until they accept reality. Less violent than your hammer example.)

Fair enough I prefer avoiding violence but I do like to get things done quickly.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

When you die as well, but that is not provable for anyone dead (as far as we can currently prove) anyway. However, one does not need to believe in an auditory or visual hallucination that may not “go away”. A simple persistence of what we do not believe in is sometimes not an accurate definition of reality, I am not sure if there is a completely consistent definition of reality, but that one sure comes close.

It doesn't. The lack of a conscience renders the difference between something and nothing moot.

Not at all, it only renders something’s ability to “appreciate” moot.

I'm a materialist. I accept a material reality. That said, I can't prove a material reality. Neither can you even if you do bash your skull in with a hammer.

I did not claim to be able to and that wasn’t the point. The point was given then lack of provability, or the ability to distinguish, which ascription presents less risk. If everything is just in my mind no problem, if in someone else’s mind then I had better make sure they stay healthy. If in no one's mind and an objective reality then I better behave accordingly. With no way to distinguish between the three, the latter is the safest bet as it accommodates the other two while the other two do not accommodate it..

Further, without consciousness the difference between existence and non existence is inconsequential. You can call it clap trap but it is inarguable.

Oh, some things may not be provable but they certainly are arguable, especially those things that aren’t provable. Non existence has no consequences while existence does, so the difference is specifically consequential, even without consciousness.

 

[The Man]

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

The same difference then had before “no conscience ever existed” (and now that consciousness does exist). Are you asserting that consciousness has always existed? From all current indications, at some point consciousness may no longer exist within the universe and the difference between something and nothing will still remain. Please provide some indication that this “difference between something and nothing” has changed once consciousness developed and will change again if it is gone or that consciousness has always and will always exist.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, some things may not be provable but they certainly are arguable...

Not this one. Existence is only substantive to a conscious entity.

Non existence has no consequences while existence does...

Only to a conscious entity.

 

[RandFan]

The same difference then had before “no conscience ever existed” (and now that consciousness does exist). Are you asserting that consciousness has always existed? From all current indications, at some point consciousness may no longer exist within the universe and the difference between something and nothing will still remain. Please provide some indication that this “difference between something and nothing” has changed once consciousness developed and will change again if it is gone or that consciousness has always and will always exist.

?

If there is no consciousness there is no difference between something and nothing. I posit no claims as to how long consciousness has existed or will exist. That there has been or always will be consciousness is irrelevant. My point is only hypothetical given that there is no consciousness.

 

[Hokulele]

One, Two, Three, Four, Five......

Keep counting and let me know when you reach infinity.

 

[reverebison]

Thinkers:

I have a true reality statement for you. You are the universe. You are not you. You are the universe. Every bit of matter and energy that compose you (your consciousness) is the same as any other bit of matter and energy of the universe.

If you think you are special, somehow disconnected from the rest of the universe, you are living a dillusion.

Your consciousness is the universe understanding itself. If you were a chicken, you would simply be the universe aware. Any form of concsiousness will do. It is fascinating to me that consciousness gets as complicated as it does. The universe outdoes itself it seems. And I am sure it can get even better.

You were produced by the universe which you are a part of.

This production was not an accident, as accidents don't exist in the universe.

Everything has a reason, an explanation.

You, your consciousness has an explanation.

For existence, there must, I repeat must, be awareness. Nothing can exist without awareness.

Proof.... The universe produces consciousness.

Do you thinkers know that the universe could certainly exist without consciousness, yes you know this, only while you are conscious though. That is the point....only when you are conscious do you know.

What would you know if there was no consciousness at all in the unverse. thinkers.....what would you know.

 

[Mashuna]

This production was not an accident, as accidents don't exist in the universe.

I hit my thumb with a hammer yesterday.

I refute you thus.

 

[Hokulele]

I hit my thumb with a hammer yesterday.

I refute you thus.

That wasn't you, that was the universe. Or a chicken.

 

[Mashuna]

That wasn't you, that was the universe. Or a chicken.

Ok then, I hit my chicken with a universe yesterday. Better?

 

[Hokulele]

Ok then, I hit my chicken with a universe yesterday. Better?

That's certainly a new euphemism...

 

[arthwollipot]

Your consciousness is the universe understanding itself.

I think someone's been watching too much Babylon 5.

 

[Mashuna]

That's certainly a new euphemism...

Gah! Tricked into smutty postings again!