• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

Iacchus said:
Our physical bodies, are not immune from the "non-physical" entities that reside within them.
Click to expand...
Please alert the physicists, who are quite convinced that inertia is a property of matter. Your statement contradicts Newton's First Law. Could you give us some evidence sufficent to conclude that you are right and he is wrong?
 
Iacchus said:
I'm saying that our imagination is alive and well.
Click to expand...

darthsmall.jpg
 
Iacchus said:
Do you deny then that consciousness arises from within? What other "things" could you hope to refer to without it?
Click to expand...
So, within these two sentences you have consciousness as both caused and causal. See, this is why I keep telling you you need to brush up on your circularity.
 
Mercutio said:
So, within these two sentences you have consciousness as both caused and causal. See, this is why I keep telling you you need to brush up on your circularity.
Click to expand...
But this is whole point, nothing can be proven outside of what we experience, except through consciousness. In fact I would say the only thing one thing has in common with another is consciousness. This is the only way we can know of them, and hence speak of them.
 
Iacchus said:
But this is whole point, nothing can be proven outside of what we experience, except through consciousness. In fact I would say that the only thing one thing has in common with another is consciousness. This is the only way we can know of them, and hence speak of them.
Click to expand...
Your view insists that you assert your conclusion. OK. Glad that is clear. There is nothing in your view that is logically sound, which nicely fits with the fact that none of it is empirically supported.

Move along, nothing to see here.
 
Iacchus said:
But this is whole point, nothing can be proven outside of what we experience, except through consciousness. In fact I would say the only thing one thing has in common with another is consciousness. This is the only way we can know of them, and hence speak of them.
Click to expand...

Let me esplain...no that would take too long. Let me sum up.
:yo-yo:
 
Mercutio said:
Your view insists that you assert your conclusion. OK. Glad that is clear. There is nothing in your view that is logically sound, which nicely fits with the fact that none of it is empirically supported.

Move along, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
The empirical data means nothing, outside of the conscious mind which observes it. So, what else are we to conclude then, except that everything is a manifestation of consciousness? How else could we "witness" something else if, in fact that something else didn't also contain an element of consciousness?
 
Iacchus said:
The empirical data means nothing, outside of the conscious mind which observes it. So, what else are we to conclude then, except that everything is a manifestation of consciousness? How else could we "witness" something else if, in fact that something else didn't also contain an element of consciousness?
Click to expand...


No...a star will go nova with out us watching it. A hydrogen molecule will pair with an oxygen atom and make water with out us watching it. It's horribly egotistical to assume that we must watch (or be aware of) every little thing that goes on in the universe.
 
kmortis said:
No...a star will go nova with out us watching it. A hydrogen molecule will pair with an oxygen atom and make water with out us watching it. It's horribly egotistical to assume that we must watch (or be aware of) every little thing that goes on in the universe.
Click to expand...
And how do you know of such things? Then it must all be part of the same universal grid or, matrix if you will.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Yet how do you know of such things? Then it must all be part of the same universal grid or, matrix if you will.
Click to expand...

Except that my knowledge of a thing or event and that thing or event are two seperate things. If I hand you a Rand-McNally of...Montana and tell you to drive from Big Sky to Helena, if you assume that the landscape is flat, white and has little rectangular creases, you'd be wrong. The map is NOT the territory. My knowledge is the map, the nova is the territory. Get it yet?
 
kmortis said:
Except that my knowledge of a thing or event and that thing or event are two seperate things. If I hand you a Rand-McNally of...Montana and tell you to drive from Big Sky to Helena, if you assume that the landscape is flat, white and has little rectangular creases, you'd be wrong. The map is NOT the territory. My knowledge is the map, the nova is the territory. Get it yet?
Click to expand...
Yet if you decided to take the actual drive, would you be conscious? What is it about your understanding of the Universe (hence experience) that does not entail consciousness? Indeed, how can consciousness know of anything else but, consciousness?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
The empirical data means nothing, outside of the conscious mind which observes it. So, what else are we to conclude then, except that everything is a manifestation of consciousness? How else could we "witness" something else if, in fact that something else didn't also contain an element of consciousness?
Click to expand...
Thank you for illustrating my point. You claim that a conscious mind is necessary for observation. Your evidence is that we can observe, which you assert requires a conscious mind. Your conclusion is right there in your initial assumptions. Exactly as I said.

:dig:
 
And do you believe it's possible to pull oneself up one's bootstraps? Why do you believe such a thing is possible? Can fish breath outside of the atmosphere that's provided for them? Of course not.
 
Mercutio said:
Thank you for illustrating my point. You claim that a conscious mind is necessary for observation. Your evidence is that we can observe, which you assert requires a conscious mind. Your conclusion is right there in your initial assumptions. Exactly as I said.

:dig:
Click to expand...
No, I am claiming that anything that is viewable by a conscious mind, must have an element of consciousness to it. Actually, much of this seems to coincide with HypnoPsi's thread which, I just took a gander at.
 
Iacchus said:
So, just because it may in fact appear that God doesn't exist, that it holds just as much potential of being proven otherwise? Hmm ... very interesting.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you take the parallel with what I said, you should say: "Just because MOST people believe in a God or in the supernatural doesn't mean it exists." I believe you may be familiar with the argument from popularity.
 
Iacchus said:
But this is whole point, nothing can be proven outside of what we experience, except through consciousness. In fact I would say the only thing one thing has in common with another is consciousness. This is the only way we can know of them, and hence speak of them.
Click to expand...

However, as I pointed out to HypnoPsi, since we can basically all agree on what we experience, we have to conclude that there IS a physical reality, unless we can deny that other people are also conscious. Then, of course, we'd still have to explain how we could "imagine" a reality without prior experience of a reality.
 
Iacchus said:
The empirical data means nothing, outside of the conscious mind which observes it. So, what else are we to conclude then, except that everything is a manifestation of consciousness? How else could we "witness" something else if, in fact that something else didn't also contain an element of consciousness?
Click to expand...

Woah! That is quite a leap.

First off, we would have to prove that consciousness is anything more than a mere physical artefact of the brain's neurological processes.

Second, even if we were to establish that, the consistency of our collective experience would show that indeed there IS a "something else".

Third, even if there isn't a physical reality per se, I don't see why we couldn't conclude that its all just a figment of our imagination, rather than say "it has an element of consciousness," as in, I assume "it's all part of God" or some crap. Even in an illusory world where thought creates reality, reality is not sentient. But, perhaps I read too much meaning in your assertions.
 
Iacchus said:
Yet if you decided to take the actual drive, would you be conscious? What is it about your understanding of the Universe (hence experience) that does not entail consciousness? Indeed, how can consciousness know of anything else but, consciousness?
Click to expand...

I said time and time again, sophistry makes my head hurt. Even assuming that you're right, it wouldn't change anything. Within the mind-reality, all that science claims would still hold true. Whether it's illusory or not, it has consistency, so its reliable no matter WHAT it's "fundamentally" made of.
 
Belz... said:
Not that I doubt what you're saying, but could there be a certain amount of retrofitting there ? I know I've done it in the past, more or less knowingly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Like I said, my brother's experience was just heresay (I just added it as an example). One dream I remember (and have for some time, although I admit it happened a long time ago) was where I was walking along a shallow river. I remember looking into the water and seeing in perfect detail small pebbles of different colours, shapes and sizes, and various little fish swimming around. The water was even perfect (as far as I could tell, and as far as I can remember), including ripples, 'white caps' above larger rockes, etc. I remember this dream specifically because it turned into one of my few nightmares I've ever had.

But I freely admit it was a long time ago, and that I could be 'retrofitting'. Personally I don't think I am, as I remember describing that dream to my family the next day. You'll have to make up your own mind, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom