• 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.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

LarryS said:
I have never claimed that clocks and etc. aren't real, nor have I claimed they are a product of your/our/everyone's imagination. There is a strong bias in this thread, and which is reinforced by the semantics of our language (as in an expression such as I see the tree)- - - that if anyone claims there is no evidence of a physical reality, and that experience occurs in awareness; then that means that the reality which is being proposed is somehow less real, or a product of imagination. This is a bias people bring to the conversation, not a claim I am making.
Click to expand...

If you claim that there is no evidence for X, then you are saying that X is probably not real. It's not a bias. One way or another you probably get out of the way of cars and heavy objects, so there's one piece of evidence for reality.
 
IanS said:
Without going one-by-one through each of your statements, because apart from anything else I think they are all repeats of the same explanation using different words each time (that's fine, you are trying to explain in a variety of different words, what you mean when you say things), let's just take those first two highighred parts (because that's all we need) -

1. when you say "I proposed a definition of 'awareness' as 'being present, being aware" ... you cannot define "awareness by saying it is "being aware". And it does not help at all to add the word "present" ... however, you do not even have to do anything so precise as "defining it" (I don't think I have ever asked anyone on this site to define anything) ... I was just asking you for the far simpler explanation of merely describing whatever was manifest in your thoughts such that you would describe that manifestation as being "aware" of something, i.e. being "conscious" of anything.

2. to take the second highlight where you say "I am aware of a clock on the wall" ... how do you know that you are aware of any clock on any wall? ... what sensation or effect occurs in your mind to make you say "I am now aware of that clock"? ... for example, does it seem in your mind that you see a visual image of a clock on an wall?
Click to expand...

I am attempting to begin with the most basic claims, claims that require no beliefs or assertions. If you can't or won't accept these claims, then I suggest you give it a shot . . . you provide a starting point, the most basic claim(s) that require no beliefs or assertions.

1) our most fundamental experience is 'being present, being aware'. By this I mean, 'I exist, and I am aware'
2) experiences occur in awareness, I see the tree, I am tasting peanut butter, I am remembering my grandmother's face, etc.; all these experiences occur in awareness as in I am aware of these contents - these contents appear in awareness.

Note: I am not making any claims re reality, what it's made of, or how it exists and etc.
 
LarryS said:
I am attempting to begin with the most basic claims, claims that require no beliefs or assertions. If you can't or won't accept these claims, then I suggest you give it a shot . . . you provide a starting point, the most basic claim(s) that require no beliefs or assertions.

1) our most fundamental experience is 'being present, being aware'. By this I mean, 'I exist, and I am aware'
2) experiences occur in awareness, I see the tree, I am tasting peanut butter, I am remembering my grandmother's face, etc.; all these experiences occur in awareness as in I am aware of these contents - these contents appear in awareness.

Note: I am not making any claims re reality, what it's made of, or how it exists and etc.
Click to expand...


Yep, and that's why when you're reading a novel, your second-most fundamental experience (after being aware) is the act of viewing and parsing text. Whatever is going on in the novel is only coming to you through the act of decoding the language it's printed in. So that process is clearly more fundamental than some imaginary story abstractly represented therein.

And when you look through a window, you mostly see the window, because it's closer to you, and anything else you're seeing is only visible through it. The window is fundamental to the view beyond.

Am I getting the hang of how this "fundamentalness" works?
 
Myriad said:
Yep, and that's why when you're reading a novel, your second-most fundamental experience (after being aware) is the act of viewing and parsing text. Whatever is going on in the novel is only coming to you through the act of decoding the language it's printed in. So that process is clearly more fundamental than some imaginary story abstractly represented therein.

And when you look through a window, you mostly see the window, because it's closer to you, and anything else you're seeing is only visible through it. The window is fundamental to the view beyond.

Am I getting the hang of how this "fundamentalness" works?
Click to expand...

perhaps . . . but your examples of fundamentalness are far more complex than what I'm suggested - I was not yet concerned with content (novels, coding/decoding, windows, etc.), but awareness itself. Once content is introduced, then soon questions of qualia and dark matter set in : )
 
Belz... said:
If you claim that there is no evidence for X, then you are saying that X is probably not real. It's not a bias. One way or another you probably get out of the way of cars and heavy objects, so there's one piece of evidence for reality.
Click to expand...

No.
 
There is no evidence for visiting aliens.

“But I really want aliens to be visiting our planet and you can’t prove they aren’t, so I say they probably are”.

See?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
If you claim that there is no evidence for X, then you are saying that X is probably not real. It's not a bias. One way or another you probably get out of the way of cars and heavy objects, so there's one piece of evidence for reality.
Click to expand...

No, I am claiming there is reality, and events occurring in consciousness have real consequences. There's no evidence that reality it is an independent and physical reality - that is a belief, that's an assertion.
 
LarryS said:
No, I am claiming there is reality, and events occurring in consciousness have real consequences. There's no evidence that reality it is an independent and physical reality - that is a belief, that's an assertion.
Click to expand...

This.
 
LarryS said:
No, I am claiming there is reality, and events occurring in consciousness have real consequences. There's no evidence that reality it is an independent and physical reality - that is a belief, that's an assertion.
Click to expand...
Life is but a consciousness dream :rolleyes:.

Wonder what the "real" consequences of a non-physical reality are? Example?
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Life is but a consciousness dream :rolleyes:.

Wonder what the "real" consequences of a non-physical reality are? Example?
Click to expand...

I don't know about this being a 'dream' - I'm disappointed with TV shows and movies that end with it all being a dream. . . regarding the 'real' consequences of a non-physical reality, I believe (but not sure) that science will eventually figure this out.
 
Watching people argue endlessly on consciousness is literally, watching people's consciousnesses trying to define their own consciousness. It's like a mirror bending itself so it can try to see its reflection on its own glass body.

And, just like such mirror, what to "him" seems to be a magic infinite tunnel of endless reflections, is nothing but an illusion. A mere, almost cheap, trickery.
 
LarryS said:
No, I am claiming there is reality, and events occurring in consciousness have real consequences. There's no evidence that reality it is an independent and physical reality - that is a belief, that's an assertion.
Click to expand...

That's a silly claim. There's plenty of evidence, even if you can't say you're 100% certain.
 
Larry said:
There is no evidence that reality is an independent and physical reality
Click to expand...
No there is not but it is treated as if it is on the basis that solipsism is incredibly improbable
For were it a mental construct it would be different for every one instead of being the same
 
LarryS said:
No, I am claiming there is reality, and events occurring in consciousness have real consequences. There's no evidence that reality it is an independent and physical reality - that is a belief, that's an assertion.
Click to expand...

As is your "being present, being aware". But so what?

What difference does it make?
 
LarryS said:
No, I am claiming there is reality, and events occurring in consciousness have real consequences. There's no evidence that reality it is an independent and physical reality - that is a belief, that's an assertion.
Click to expand...

It is also a moot point, until there is a consequence of ontology. They are all the same, there is the apparent reality.
So until there is a demonstrable difference between ontologies, it doesn't matter what the ontology is.
It doesn't matter if things exist in and of themselves.
They behave as though they do.

Butterfly dreams
Brains In Vats
godthought
dancing energy

All the same=apparent reality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom