Question for materialists

reply to post by sirnex


But it is you who is claiming consciousness does not exist, it is you who is asking all the questions.
Science is indeed trying to find out what consciousness is.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure ......... which has no relation to reality.”

If you don't even understand your own signature then there is no hope.

reply to post by sirnex


I am experiencing a dream.
Within this dream i get into my dream car and put the dream key into the ignition and i start the car. Did the key cause the car to start?
In a dream i build a AI brain, the brain seems to be awake and aware. Does this mean the dream brain is conscious?
No, it is all just an appearance within consciousness.
The dream car, the dream brain are not real, but the experience is real.
Something seems to be happening.
This is consciousness. Consciousness is like the container in which everything happens, in which all things appear and disappear.
Eventually the body and the mind (which are only appearances) will disappear. However what contains it will never disappear.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Consciousness is like the container in which everything happens, in which all things appear and disappear.

You regard consciousness as a ‘container for everything’? Then you make oneself out to be the arbiter of the entire universe. A fine pretension, for a being that cannot even be sure of bending his own bowels to his will!

Countless events occur in the world at every moment. Of these, consciousness is unaware of more than a tiny fraction. These events occur in the world outside the ambit of our senses. They also occur inside our own bodies – no, in our very brains – without our conscious minds ever becoming aware of them.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

But it is you who is claiming consciousness does not exist, it is you who is asking all the questions.
Science is indeed trying to find out what consciousness is.

No, I do believe consciousness does exist. What I believe is that there is a materialist answer to consciousness. What I am attempting to show is that without a materialist answer, you can't prove consciousness is a real phenomenon. This is why you still have been unable to show me how you would even prove to your own self that you are a real conscious entity and not an entity with the illusion of consciousness.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure ......... which has no relation to reality.”

If you don't even understand your own signature then there is no hope.

If you can't read, then how can you even begin to understand what science discovers and reports back?

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments.

Substituted means in place of. So, Tesla is telling us that he feels scientists are relying upon mathematical equations in place of, instead of utilizing experiment in order to build an understanding of reality.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I am experiencing a dream.

No, it is all just an appearance within consciousness.

Yet, you still when asked have been unable to show how a dream can exist without material science, or how consciousness can exist without material science. You haven't been able to explain how one would know they are conscious and not under the illusion of being conscious.

What if you are a dream yourself? Then by your own reasoning, you are not conscious at all.

If your going to claim it's all a dream that occurs within consciousness, then you should have no issues with the possibility that your not conscious at all. You could be a dream in and of your self and not the one observing the dream.

reply to post by sirnex


All there is, is the dream (this is consciousness). Within the dream - everything appears. There is nothing but the dream, all contents are illusions, mirages,rainbows. When we wake in the morning we dismiss the dream, it was not made of matter so it does not matter.
However, when we wake up we think this is real, completely different from a dream which disappeared into thin air.
When you apparently die, the dream will continue but this character that you think you are now will disappear into thin air, as it were.
The body/mind is just part of the scenery, no different than any other 'thing'.
'Things' are appearing and disappearing
What you essentially are, is eternal, you are the dream.

So no, 'i' as a separate individual is not conscious, however i am consciousness itself.
Consciousness aware of itself.
So are you, if you become notice that you are conscious.

reply to post by sirnex


Here is a question for you.
What is sound? Is noise made of marerial? Can you hold it in your hand and look at it?
Music is only ever one bit at a time, appearance and disappearance.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

Here is a question for you.
What is sound? Is noise made of marerial? Can you hold it in your hand and look at it?
Music is only ever one bit at a time, appearance and disappearance.

Sound is mechanical energy. www.physicsclassroom.com...

reply to post by sirnex


This is always the problem, we have words for things yet we don't really know what anything is. We slap words and explanations on everything and then think we know what it is. But really the word is not the experience. The words and explanations build a structure that has no real relationship with reality. It does not tell the truth.
Experience noise, notice that sound appears and disappears. Where does it come from and where does it disappear to? And what is it appearing in?

reply to post by Astyanax


I am. But this 'I am' is not this individual person sitting here typing. There are no individuals within consciousness. 'I' as a separate person is just part of the appearances within the dream, part of the scenery.
We are born into a dream of separateness. One day it will be seen that nothing is separate.
Oneness.
This one is all.

This 'character' that i might 'think' i am, does not in fact exist. This 'character' is no more that an illusion, no more than a light beam.

God is like a diamond with many beams of light reflecting, we are no more that a beam of light. The little light beam, like the wave thinks it is separate and being separate is scary. The fear that is produced by the separateness, is unfounded. The beam of light tries everything to find it's way home, looking at all the other beams/waves struggle and fight for survival or salvation. It looks at other beams of light (mirages) to hold on to but they all crumble and collapse because they have no real substance.
One day the lightbeam or wave get so tired or disillusioned that it gives up completely. Instead of falling apart there is a return to source. I am the diamond.

I like this, it may help you see what is going on here;
youtu.be...

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

This is always the problem, we have words for things yet we don't really know what anything is. We slap words and explanations on everything and then think we know what it is. But really the word is not the experience. The words and explanations build a structure that has no real relationship with reality. It does not tell the truth.
Experience noise, notice that sound appears and disappears. Where does it come from and where does it disappear to? And what is it appearing in?

Wow, that's pretty life changing....

Sound doesn't really exist as a form of mechanical energy? Damn those evil scientists and their satanic technology that works off nothing but lies!

Okay, I'm back. That didn't take too long, eh?

Actually I was rereading this thread and there was a post that I realized I wished I had responded to more completely because it really needed it. So now I am going to respond to it properly, to avoid giving the impression that I am conceding these points.

I will include one quote-level up since it's an older discussion.

Originally posted by sirnex

I did not answer the other stuff because it is irrelevant. I studied engineering. You don't need to convince me there. Material science is great for building things like cars and computers or even tinkering with people's minds via the obscure mind-matter connection (drugs, neurosurgery, etc.)

If material science is useful to such a degree, it's theories utilized on a daily basis, then how can it possibly be wrong at all?

Do you really want me to answer that? You profess to know so much about science; you're acting like you don't even know how the scientific method works in principle. Not to mention the inherent corruptibility of "publish or perish" and other aspects of science (you might try graduate study at a university someday; it's very revealing).

Anyway, this is beside the point. I know you did not mean "anything a scientist says is Gospel", so it would be unfair of me to impute that on you. All I'm saying for that is, you might want to watch your wording in the future.

What I would like to know then is, what exactly do you mean by this? What exactly does "science" (I like how you treat "it" like some monolithic entity, but that is not surprising since you seem to have invested "it" with the emotions typically reserved for religion) say about conscious experience? In your own words or with sources to back it up or both. You're in the thread whose very purpose was to ask for the answer you apparently have. You have not given the answer. You have only boringly repeated "materialist science has it, materialist science has it". Well, what is it?

What I mean is, you seem to be saying, "Because science can build a car, it's right about consciousness". Aside from the logical absurdity of this, you haven't said what it says about consciousness (besides repeating the "biochemical interactions" mantra which, by the way, is in the OP in slightly different wording, so you have added nothing).

Originally posted by sirnex

Ah, so when debating materialism only arguments rooted in materialism are valid. I see how this game is played.

Not at all, I simply asked that we not use personal experience as a form of validation.

You ask and I decline. I trust personal experience over nth-hand written word any day of the week (especially since the latter is a form of my personal experience, as everything I know is). Every step forward I have made in my life has been in no small part due to trusting my own senses and intuition. Sorry, no can do.

Originally posted by sirnex
If we do that then we must assume every religion on the planet as well as their respective deities are very real and all the creators of the universe regardless of the blaring contradiction between all the various faiths that proclaim only a singular creator exists.

This does not follow at all, but what it does is reveal your agenda. This thread has not been about deities.


My apologies for being a latecomer to this. That I missed the importance of this post to the topic of discussion is my fault.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

You profess to know so much about science

No I didn't, nor would I ever claim to know a lot about science.

you're acting like you don't even know how the scientific method works in principle.

I understand the scientific method just fine. I just wish all these metaphysical claims understood it well enough themselves. I mean, I'm pretty sure the scientific method is not a method that allows one to make an arbitrary claim of truth without some form of evidence or experimentation to prove the claim is indeed truth.

Not to mention the inherent corruptibility of "publish or perish" and other aspects of science (you might try graduate study at a university someday; it's very revealing).

Yep, that's human politics for ya, and I don't mean that as in just government type politics. High school drama never ends!

Anyway, this is beside the point. I know you did not mean "anything a scientist says is Gospel", so it would be unfair of me to impute that on you. All I'm saying for that is, you might want to watch your wording in the future.

Or you could try not reading thing's that don't exist causing unnecessary replies of I know this isn't what you implied buuut I'm gunna say it anyways cuz I don't have any real argument against it. Just saying...

What I would like to know then is, what exactly do you mean by this? What exactly does "science" (I like how you treat "it" like some monolithic entity, but that is not surprising since you seem to have invested "it" with the emotions typically reserved for religion)

I'm just talking about science in general, not as an "it" or an entity with emotions (come on, that would just be silly wouldn't it?), but as a method of discovering what makes reality tick. Our science is based upon the universe being an objective material reality, and thus far every aspect of this has brought many wonderful useful discoveries. On the other end of the spectrum we have this metaphysical idealist theories that have shown no evidence for their claimed "truths", all experiments shown these phenomena as hoaxed or inclusive or false. I'm sorry if I bash these trains of thoughts, but they have provided nothing of value except dvd and book sales.

say about conscious experience?

What is the definition of consciousness? Answer me that and I'll answer your question. Seems to me most people don't understand what consciousness really is and are under the mistaken impression that it's your sole identity, the thing that makes you uniquely you. Look up the definition and get back to me.

You're in the thread whose very purpose was to ask for the answer you apparently have. You have not given the answer.

I've been discussing this in another thread as well, but with people who claim the opposite to be true. They too fail to provide an idealistic answer to consciousness. Again, I feel this is due to not understanding what consciousness means and what it is.

What I mean is, you seem to be saying, "Because science can build a car, it's right about consciousness".

That's not what I'm implying at all. There are many theories that I don't personally subscribe to, such as the big bang model for example. I don't worship everything science says as if it were holy scripture. Yet when material science provides useful technologies based upon it's material discoveries, how can I arbitrarily discredit those achievements and claim that consciousness could never be a material phenomenon or that the universe doesn't exist as a material universe?

What exactly has idealistic theories of reality provided us? Squat!

You ask and I decline. I trust personal experience over nth-hand written word any day of the week (especially since the latter is a form of my personal experience, as everything I know is). Every step forward I have made in my life has been in no small part due to trusting my own senses and intuition. Sorry, no can do.

Would you trust personal experience if inebriated or under hallucinogens? Would you trust it well enough to hop in a vehicle and drive through a crowded section of town?

This does not follow at all, but what it does reveal is your agenda. This thread has not been about deities.

What a bull crap cop out. If I am to trust your personal experience because you claim your personal experience is incapable of being false to such a degree that you firmly believe it to show the true nature of reality then by default you and I would have to trust the personal experiences of everyone else, be it about deities, psychic claims, time travel claims, abduction claims.

Here is the reality of our world. People need to provide evidence for their claims, the world doesn't work on the honor system.

reply to post by sirnex

Our science is based upon the universe being an objective material reality,

Science is based on this conventional view of the universe, but science itself cannot establish if this convention actually agrees with reality. The scientific method as it currently exists only operates within the parameters of this convention, so it cannot verify or falsify any claims of a competing worldview or perspective.

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm just talking about science in general, not as an "it" or an entity with emotions (come on, that would just be silly wouldn't it?)

I am talking about your emotions.

Originally posted by sirnex
I've been discussing this in another thread as well, but with people who claim the opposite to be true. They too fail to provide an idealistic answer to consciousness. Again, I feel this is due to not understanding what consciousness means and what it is.

Still waiting...

Originally posted by sirnex
How can I arbitrarily discredit those achievements and claim that consciousness could never be a material phenomenon or that the universe doesn't exist as a material universe?

Got an answer for my OP yet? Defending the achievements of other men in other fields is not an answer to the OP.

Originally posted by sirnex
Would you trust personal experience if inebriated or under hallucinogens? Would you trust it well enough to hop in a vehicle and drive through a crowded section of town?

I'm not an idiot. Not on most days, anyway.

That being said, would I trust it as something that I experienced, contemplate it, attempt to figure out why my psyche in particular would produce such particular images, treat it as an interesting experiment, try to glean some enlightenment from it? Absolutely. I am not afraid to cautiously experiment with myself.

Would I consider myself okay to drive? Probably not. Depends on what I am experiencing.

Originally posted by sirnex
What a bull crap cop out. If I am to trust your personal experience because you claim your personal experience is incapable of being false to such a degree that you firmly believe it to show the true nature of reality

Oh yeah, now I remember why I quit this thread. It's everything I can do just to get you on the same page as me, which I have yet to do. We haven't even started having a conversation. I'm still trying to build the necessary common ground for a meaningful discussion, but it's not happening.

Anyway,

1. I did not ask you to trust my personal experience. Never. Quote me. Quote me once in this thread where I did that.
2. I never claimed my experience to be incapable of being false. What I did claim was that every major step forward in my life has been to trusting my personal experience. There's a huge difference. Black-and-white thinking is easy, but it's not how the universe works.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

I am talking about your emotions.

I suppose you should be careful with your wording as well.

Still waiting...

Reply back with the definition of consciousness, please? It's really interesting how insane these conversations are once you understand what the damn word means.

Got an answer for my OP yet? Defending the achievements of other men in other fields is not an answer to the OP.

Can you provide idealistic answers to how material technologies work?

I'm not an idiot. Not on most days, anyway.

That being said, would I trust it as something that I experienced, contemplate it, attempt to figure out why my psyche in particular would produce such particular images, treat it as an interesting experiment, try to glean some enlightenment from it? Absolutely. I am not afraid to cautiously experiment with myself.

Would I consider myself okay to drive? Probably not. Depends on what I am experiencing.

So you would only trust your personal experience if it would not cause you harm? That's rather interesting...

Oh yeah, now I remember why I quit this thread. It's everything I can do just to get you on the same page as me, which I have yet to do. We haven't even started having a conversation. I'm still trying to build the necessary common ground for a meaningful discussion, but it's not happening.

We can't have a meaningful conversation.

1. I did not ask you to trust my personal experience. Never. Quote me. Quote me once in this thread where I did that.

I'm fully aware of that point, but as I said... IF I AM too trust your personal experience then I am by default required to trust the personal experience claims of everyone else, which is going to make reality a whole lot more complicated than it already is. The deity aspect was just one minute angle on that perspective.

2. I never claimed my experience to be incapable of being false. What I did claim was that every major step forward in my life has been to trusting my personal experience. There's a huge difference. Black-and-white thinking is easy, but it's not how the universe works.

What new verifiable insights and knowledge has your personal experiences brought the world? Why are you not acknowledge due to your personal experience? Why are you discussing your personal experience as validation for yourself rather than having your personal experience verified and published as what reality really is?

No one cares what your personal experience is except to those looking for confirmation bias arguments. I'm not one of those folks, I don't experience what you experience, I don't make pretend that the world is idealistic, or that consciousness is some metaphysical "me".

Do you even know what the word itself means, what consciousness is? Do you really think consciousness is what your identity is?

reply to post by sirnex

Do you even know what the word itself means, what consciousness is? Do you really think consciousness is what your identity is?

To date, there is no universal agreement among scientists or philosophers about consciousness, what it is, how it functions, why it even exists.

Here is a good starting point to gain an overview of the complexity of the science of consciousness:

Online Papers on Consciousness

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by sirnex

 

Do you even know what the word itself means, what consciousness is? Do you really think consciousness is what your identity is?

To date, there is no universal agreement among scientists or philosophers about consciousness, what it is, how it functions, why it even exists.

Here is a good starting point to gain an overview of the complexity of the science of consciousness:

Online Papers on Consciousness

What is the definition? Why won't anyone post it? LOL

reply to post by sirnex

Yes, I am done.

Consciousness and the meaning of the word has been discussed at length in this thread, including the reasons why defining it is a sticky situation. Hence why there must be a common understanding or there is nothing to discuss.

Everything else have been the usual completely missing the point. This whole business about trusting in everybody's personal experience is not at all what i'm trying to get at. I am trying to get you to trust in your personal experience! That's where your definition of consciousness is! The experience of hunger before you even get a chance to attach the human-created words "I'm hungry" to it. The experience of music before you even get a chance to attach the human-created word "Jazz" to it. The experience! Not what men have written about it! The experience itself! If you still don't know what I'm talking about, you really are a p-zed, or I'm a terrible communicator.

You still have utterly failed to address the OP. It's no surprise; everyone else who tried has as well.

The most insightful thing you've said in this whole thread is "We can't have a meaningful conversation." I agree. I wonder why you continued typing after that realization.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

Consciousness and the meaning of the word has been discussed at length in this thread, including the reasons why defining it is a sticky situation. Hence why there must be a common understanding or there is nothing to discuss.

How is defining aware and unaware a "sticky" situation? Being either aware or unaware is not that which makes you, you.

Everything else have been the usual completely missing the point. This whole business about trusting in everybody's personal experience is not at all what i'm trying to get at.

All I was asking is that you DO NOT USE YOU'RE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS PROOF OF ANYTHING! If you're going to tell me your personal experience is proof for anything, then I have to by default accept everyone else personal experience as proof of their claims. As you would have to accept my personal experience equally.

I am trying to get you to trust in your personal experience!

I refuse to trust my personal experience because what I experience is NOT what you experience.

That's where your definition of consciousness is! The experience of hunger before you even get a chance to attach the human-created words "I'm hungry" to it. The experience of music before you even get a chance to attach the human-created word "Jazz" to it. The experience! Not what men have written about it! The experience itself! If you still don't know what I'm talking about, you really are a p-zed, or I'm a terrible communicator.

Are you talking about self awareness or about unique identity?

You still have utterly failed to address the OP. It's no surprise; everyone else who tried has as well.

Because I can't get you on the same page as to what consciousness is and what it is not, hence why you still refuse to acknowledge that consciousness is another way of simply saying self aware. It's not identity, it's not what makes you, you. Your completely at loss here. Your equating the word consciousness with something it's not, so please be more careful of your wording.

The most insightful thing you've said in this whole thread is "We can't have a meaningful conversation." I agree. I wonder why you continued typing after that realization.

Because I'm trying to get to a point where we can have a meaningful conversation, but we can't if your going to redefine the meaning of common language.

reply to post by sirnex

What is the definition? Why won't anyone post it? LOL

The point of posting my link was to give a hint of the vastness of the debate about consciousness, even the very definition of the concept of consciousness. Your insistence that someone posts a definition only demonstrates that you are yet to familiarise yourself with the problem of consciousness within scientific, philosophical and epistemological fields.

For the purpose of the discussion, I define consciousness as simply awareness. In my view, consciousness is irreducible, (as is existence and reality), which basically means that consciousness is not dependant on physicality.