I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Tommy Jeppesen]

If this is the case then the more rigorous approach would have to begin to including some of the behaviours, or inputs of specific biological organs in the body of the subject. To model enzyme and hormonal variation and perhaps even certain metabolic conditions.

Yes, there is an assumption that physical material if performing a certain process magically becomes conscious. We could make a fully self conscious machine, while not being able to find which cog or wire is actually conscious, only the whole thing is conscious and that consciousness is a ghost in the machine. Of course the machine can function perfectly without the ghost, we could just ignore it, or say it is the machine. But of course this would be incoherent.

Yes it may confuse the issue, I think the point still holds because the entity of the android is human construct.
...

So the android is not self-conscious, yet it is biological.
You move the goal-posts as you see fit, right punshhh

As to physical and magical - I am physical and magical according to you, because I am conscious and physical.

 

[Belz...]

The non-personality of the simplest state of existence is directly known only by practicing techniques that actually enable to directly be aware of its unbounded, non-composed, absolutely invariant and non-personal nature.

Wow, those are a lot of big words. Could you rephrase that ? I ask because it doesn't seem like it's answering my question.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wow, those are a lot of big words. Could you rephrase that ? I ask because it doesn't seem like it's answering my question.

Nothing of what I write in this thread (big words or not) can actually answer to your question, simply because the actual answer is given only by practicing techniques like TM.

If you are still missing this simple fact, it is similar to the fact that only reading a guide about mussels development can't actually develop your mussels, you have no choice but actually practice what is written in this guide.

 

[realpaladin]

Nothing of what I write in this thread (big words or not) can actually answer to your question, simply because the actual answer is given only by practicing techniques like TM.

If you are still missing this simple fact, it is similar to the fact that only reading a guide about mussels development can't actually develop your mussels, you have no choice but actually practice what is written in this guide.

 

[LarryS]

Wow, those are a lot of big words. Could you rephrase that ? I ask because it doesn't seem like it's answering my question.

I am not positive what Doron is referring to with the phrase 'simplest state of awareness' but if I were to wager a guess I think it's something like the following: at any time, we can stop (the world so to speak) and ask our selves are we conscious? How do I know I'm conscious? And, for perhaps a brief moment we can locate that awareness and be aware of being aware (simplest state) and then the thought 'Yes I am conscious' and then the busy world returns and its off to the races once again. We don't really need TM.

Interesting that for these brief moments, we infer a first person experiencer, and we then assume this first person experiencer is there all the time. But possibly we are rarely conscious.

 

[LarryS]

What do you mean by not given?

What I mean: Is the "I" inferred in retrospect? Can we locate this "I" as an agent, as an experiencer, or is the "I" merely another thought?

 

[Nonpareil]

If this is the case then the more rigorous approach would have to begin to including some of the behaviours, or inputs of specific biological organs in the body of the subject. To model enzyme and hormonal variation and perhaps even certain metabolic conditions.

Those are not prerequisites for consciousness.

Yes, there is an assumption that physical material if performing a certain process magically becomes conscious.

No. There is a conclusion that certain material processes result in consciousness.

Because I know I am self-conscious, this does not rule out the possibility that I am mistaken, that the experience I have of be-ing is a construct, or illusory, or that the reality is entirely inconcievable to me.

Which leads you back to solipsism.

Which promptly collapses.

Again.

 

[doronshadmi]

And, for perhaps a brief moment we can locate that awareness and be aware of being aware

Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence has to be developed into constant awareness during the non-constant awareness states like sleeping, dreaming, waking, etc.

Moreover, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is in itself simple (no complexity like be aware of being aware is involved, and nothing is located because the simplest state of existence transcends all space\time phenomena).

Dear LarryS, you are still closed under thoughts about the simplest state of existence, which is not direct awareness of the simplest state of existence.

We don't really need TM.

Your reply about techniques like TM, actually demonstrates why we actually need such a technique, in order to actually directly be aware of the simplest state of existence as the permanent awareness at the basis of non-permanent states of awareness like sleeping, dreaming, waking, etc.

at any time, we can stop (the world so to speak) and ask our selves are we conscious?

Nothing stops or starts at the simplest state of existence, also no questions or answers are found at the simplest state of existence (once again, the simplest state of existence can't be known at the level of space\time phenomena).

Interesting that for these brief moments, we infer a first person experiencer,

Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is non-personal.

Generally, you are still missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440785&postcount=1481.

 

[LarryS]

Those are not prerequisites for consciousness.



No. There is a conclusion that certain material processes result in consciousness.



Which leads you back to solipsism.

Which promptly collapses.

Again.

Yes, but to claim that validation of consciousness can only be performed in principle is only a slightly weaker form of solipsism.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes, but to claim that validation of consciousness can only be performed in principle is only a slightly weaker form of solipsism.

Which I never said, so.

 

[LarryS]

Which I never said, so.

OK, so how do we evaluate whether a thing or another person is conscious?

 

[dlorde]

Apologies for the delay, I've been away.

So Pinocchio and Punch and Judy live(are self-conscious).

I hate to break it to you, but these are fictional characters. They are not independently animate, so have no behaviours of their own. If you're confused by puppetry, the activities on show are behaviours of the puppeteer.

The puppet is self-conscious.

The puppet is an inanimate tool.

I have conceded that the mimic could have a rudimentary form of consciousness, like that of a toaster. This is all that is required to perform all the behaviour, there is no need for self-consciousness.

You think a toaster is conscious?

You don't seem to be grasping the point - if something behaves as if it was self-conscious under all circumstances then it is self-conscious. A rudimentary consciousness that is not self-conscious can't do that. Oh, and if you find a self-conscious toaster, do let us know.

... only a mimic of a human which is identical in all it's organic detail, would be equivalent in consciousness.

What do you mean by 'equivalent in consciousness'?

We don't know that only a human can have consciousness comparable to human consciousness. That's the whole reason for the thought experiment.

And 'identical in all its organic detail', is a meaningless requirement, since every human is different in all its organic detail.

 

[LarryS]

Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence has to be developed into constant awareness during the non-constant awareness states like sleeping, dreaming, waking, etc.

Moreover, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is in itself simple (no complexity like be aware of being aware is involved, and nothing is located because the simplest state of existence transcends all space\time phenomena).

Dear LarryS, you are still closed under thoughts about the simplest state of existence, which is not direct awareness of the simplest state of existence.


Your reply about techniques like TM, actually demonstrates why we actually need such a technique, in order to actually directly be aware of the simplest state of existence as the permanent awareness at the basis of non-permanent states of awareness like sleeping, dreaming, waking, etc.


Nothing stops or starts at the simplest state of existence, also no questions or answers are found at the simplest state of existence (once again, the simplest state of existence can't be known at the level of space\time phenomena).


Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is non-personal.

If you're interested in gaining ground, I recommend coming down from your mountain top, dip yourself in the muck and multiplicity and speak like a freakin human being.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing of what I write in this thread (big words or not) can actually answer to your question, simply because the actual answer is given only by practicing techniques like TM.

"Sure thing I can fly by flapping my arms like a bird. Evidence ? Nah, you have to try it by yourself."

You're not fooling anyone here, Doron.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you're interested in gaining ground, I recommend coming down from your mountain top, dip yourself in the muck and multiplicity and speak like a freakin human being.

If you're interested in gaining actual ground, I recommend calming down from your mountain of multiplicity, deep yourself in the simplest state of existence which will enable you to be developed into an harmoniums factor among multiple phenomena, which is exactly the fulfillment of creatures like us, known as human beings.

 

[Belz...]

If you're interested in gaining actual ground, I recommend calming down from your mountain of multiplicity, deep yourself in the simplest state of existence which will enable you to be developed into an harmoniums factor among multiple phenomena, which is exactly the fulfillment of creatures like us, known as human beings.

That doesn't even mean anything. It's not word salad. It's word puree.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What I mean: Is the "I" inferred in retrospect? Can we locate this "I" as an agent, as an experiencer, or is the "I" merely another thought?

Okay Get it.
The "I" is a thought.
Now as to the "I" being an agent, it is only in the sense of being derived as a consequence of how the replication of the fittest genome plays out on the level of the organism.
As to there being an experiencer, it is the same as with the agent.

 

[doronshadmi]

You're not fooling anyone here, Doron.

You are right.

Unfortunately you are doing it without any help from me or anyone else, but you.

Sure thing I can fly by flapping my arms like a bird.

Sure we can't do it.

Sure a given healthy human being (any human being that has thoughts' process in his\her brain) enables to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, if he\she actually using the appropriate techniques, in order to transcend thoughts' process.

More one's awareness is influenced (bounded) by space\time phenomena, less he\she enables to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence.

So each human being has his\her developed rhythm during actual practice of techniques like TM, and proper scientific methods can help to improve the ability to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence.

 

[doronshadmi]

That doesn't even mean anything. It's not word salad. It's word puree.

I am impressed of your cuisine expertise.

 

[dlorde]

Yes, there is an assumption that physical material if performing a certain process magically becomes conscious. We could make a fully self conscious machine, while not being able to find which cog or wire is actually conscious, only the whole thing is conscious and that consciousness is a ghost in the machine

It's not magic, it's emergence, and it happens all the time. When we reproduce, we make a fully self-conscious biological machine, while not being able to find which cell or membrane is actually conscious, only the whole thing is conscious. There's no ghost in the machine.

Look at your computer monitor - a bunch of electronics and illuminating pixels that performs a certain process magically resulting in an image, yet you won't find that image in any pixel, wire, or component.

Look at water - it's wet and it flows, yet you won't find wetness or flow in any water molecule, however close you look.