Consciousness Doesn't Exist.

All this post is proving is that words are fallible... I concede that 'consciousness' does not properly describe the concept... but your argument does not disprove the concept. You have a belief... Simple as that... A belief... We could debate circles around this idea and never reach a conclusion...

Originally posted by DarkKnight21

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
Of course consciousness exists. The mere fact that we can argue over trivial semantics such as this is an act of a conscious mind.

"I think, therefore I am."

*looks under the table* Where? It is an abstract word. Your consciousness or soul or life-force or whatever you want to call it is your body. You cannot prove it isn't the body.

edit on 15-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: added abstract

Just because it is abstract and intangible does not mean it is not real. You cannot see, smell, feel, taste, or hear "consciousness" itself, but you would not be able to read these five senses in the first place if your own consciousness didn't exist.

But my body and not my consciousness read and smell and taste. Consciousness is abstract because it represents an idea only.

Originally posted by 001ggg100
All this post is proving is that words are fallible... I concede that 'consciousness' does not properly describe the concept... but your argument does not disprove the concept. You have a belief... Simple as that... A belief... We could debate circles around this idea and never reach a conclusion...

By all means then, don't participate. What I'm saying that if the word is useless, then so is the idea. If the word is abstract, then so is what it defines.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 001ggg100
All this post is proving is that words are fallible... I concede that 'consciousness' does not properly describe the concept... but your argument does not disprove the concept. You have a belief... Simple as that... A belief... We could debate circles around this idea and never reach a conclusion...

By all means then, don't participate. What I'm saying that if the word is useless, then so is the idea. If the word is abstract, then so is what it defines.

the word isn't useless. it's just we can't really grasp what the word is describing. all of this is because of logic. F logic, reality will not conform to human logic.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by solargeddon
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

You haven't proven anything either

As someone said above, this is word play, or in ATS terms trolling

You have presented the thread as a statement of fact, where fact does not exist.

Fortunately I do exist, and so does my conscious state (consciousness).

I am self aware, able to look at your twisted concept, and make a "conscious" decision to say "Hmmm, this doesn't seem right to me."

Show me the evidence, its just a cop-out to try and turn it around onto me, you made the thread the burden of substantiating your claims lies squarely with you.

I was under the impression that anything in the PHILOSOPHY and METAPHYSICS forum is not factual. Try some logic, and see if you can refute what I wrote. This is philosophy.

Well the logical conclusion I have drawn is better to have put a question mark there, than to state as fact, you don't know for certain, and cannot provide evidence to back up the title......semantics huh, they just get in the way, don't they.

The trouble is you are trying to rubbish awareness of an indivdual, we use the word consciousness to describe this, its not exactly stimulating debate, because the the very state you are trying to bring into question, is the state we use to question in the first instance......or would you like us to use the word strawberry from now on ?

Originally posted by biggmoneyme

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 001ggg100
All this post is proving is that words are fallible... I concede that 'consciousness' does not properly describe the concept... but your argument does not disprove the concept. You have a belief... Simple as that... A belief... We could debate circles around this idea and never reach a conclusion...

By all means then, don't participate. What I'm saying that if the word is useless, then so is the idea. If the word is abstract, then so is what it defines.

the word isn't useless. it's just we can't really grasp what the word is describing. all of this is because of logic. F logic, reality will not conform to human logic.

The problem with the world is people who think along these lines. Logic is a tool, if you can't wield it, don't even bother.

Originally posted by solargeddon

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by solargeddon
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

You haven't proven anything either

As someone said above, this is word play, or in ATS terms trolling

You have presented the thread as a statement of fact, where fact does not exist.

Fortunately I do exist, and so does my conscious state (consciousness).

I am self aware, able to look at your twisted concept, and make a "conscious" decision to say "Hmmm, this doesn't seem right to me."

Show me the evidence, its just a cop-out to try and turn it around onto me, you made the thread the burden of substantiating your claims lies squarely with you.

I was under the impression that anything in the PHILOSOPHY and METAPHYSICS forum is not factual. Try some logic, and see if you can refute what I wrote. This is philosophy.

Well the logical conclusion I have drawn is better to have put a question mark there, than to state as fact, you don't know for certain, and cannot provide evidence to back up the title......semantics huh, they just get in the way, don't they.

The trouble is you are trying to rubbish awareness of an indivdual, we use the word consciousness to describe this, its not exactly stimulating debate, because the the very state you are trying to bring into question, is the state we use to question in the first instance......or would you like us to use the word strawberry from now on ?

What I'm challenging is the idea of the age old mind-body problem or the Cartesian Mind. The idea that it is something separate from the body. If this is rubbish to you or trouble or you cannot handle the implications, then by all means, step back and take a bow.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 001ggg100
All this post is proving is that words are fallible... I concede that 'consciousness' does not properly describe the concept... but your argument does not disprove the concept. You have a belief... Simple as that... A belief... We could debate circles around this idea and never reach a conclusion...

By all means then, don't participate. What I'm saying that if the word is useless, then so is the idea. If the word is abstract, then so is what it defines.

Technically, an idea cannot die, having said that it can become buried alive by concensus.

Just because the word may not be all emcompassing, doesn't mean the idea isn't.

Like i said, let's use "Strawberry"

Still represents the idea, regardless of being an incomplete description of all it embodies.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
Of course consciousness exists. The mere fact that we can argue over trivial semantics such as this is an act of a conscious mind.

"I think, therefore I am."

I'm trying to prove that you exist, therefore you think.

Sorry, but I think I'll stick with Descartes, famous logician and father of calculus, on this one. Not some internet troll.

reply to post by solargeddon


I understand. Here's another way of looking at it if I didn't make myself clear enough. Your body exists, your body is conscious. Consciousness is an abstract word to define a state, and not something that is real—in this case your body, which exists, appears conscious. In no way is consciousness needed.

Oooh, you were doing so well there... until you became slightly bent out of shape. I know what you are trying to say. Your argument is logical, no doubt... But that alone, does not make it true. If a word, which we agree are fallible, does not properly describe a concept or idea, then it does not necessarily mean the idea is 'useless', but the word or words...

Do me a favor, pretend I am blind and have been all my life... Use words to describe the color blue...

Originally posted by DarkKnight21

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
Of course consciousness exists. The mere fact that we can argue over trivial semantics such as this is an act of a conscious mind.

"I think, therefore I am."

I'm trying to prove that you exist, therefore you think.

Sorry, but I think I'll stick with Descartes, famous logician and father of calculus, on this one. Not some internet troll.

Well done! And he storms off with his dignity in tact.

Originally posted by 001ggg100
Oooh, you were doing so well there... until you became slightly bent out of shape. I know what you are trying to say. Your argument is logical, no doubt... But that alone, does not make it true. If a word, which we agree are fallible, does not properly describe a concept or idea, then it does not necessarily mean the idea is 'useless', but the word or words...

Do me a favor, pretend I am blind and have been all my life... Use words to describe the color blue...

How could I? What's the point? What does that prove?

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by solargeddon

 

I understand. Here's another way of looking at it if I didn't make myself clear enough. Your body exists, your body is conscious. Consciousness is an abstract word to define a state, and not something that is real—in this case your body, which exists, appears conscious. In no way is consciousness needed.

No our body is physical, not conscious, it is our brain that is conscious, unless we are "knocked out " then our brain becomes unconscious.

Consciousness relates to our minds, there is a difference brtween our mind, and our brain.

The brain deals with all the physical stuff, regulating our body systems, the mind is our thoughts, ideas, curiosity.

Concsciousness is used to describe all of that, not the physical, our essence.

Originally posted by solargeddon

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by solargeddon

 

I understand. Here's another way of looking at it if I didn't make myself clear enough. Your body exists, your body is conscious. Consciousness is an abstract word to define a state, and not something that is real—in this case your body, which exists, appears conscious. In no way is consciousness needed.

No our body is physical, not conscious, it is our brain that is conscious, unless we are "knocked out " then our brain becomes unconscious. Your body exists, and it is conscious. No consciousness is needed.

Consciousness relates to our minds, there is a difference brtween our mind, and our brain.

The brain deals with all the physical stuff, regulating our body systems, the mind is our thoughts, ideas, curiosity.

Concsciousness is used to describe all of that, not the physical, our essence.

Sorry; its because your brain is conscious, not because of consciousness that you're conscious. Your brain exists, consciousness doesn't. Without the body, ideas and thoughts wouldn't exist. It isn't consciousness that is real.

You are using a "word" to validate your belief... Specifically that said word does not describe this concept of consciousness... Because we can't see it, measure it, etc... that it has no validity... Well to a blind individual, the color blue is an abstract idea... yet they take it on faith that when they are told something is blue, they don't question it... They can not see it, measure it and so on... So by your logic, to the blind person the word blue is a useless word, hence the idea of blue does not exist...

Originally posted by 001ggg100
You are using a "word" to validate your belief... Specifically that said word does not describe this concept of consciousness... Because we can't see it, measure it, etc... that it has no validity... Well to a blind individual, the color blue is an abstract idea... yet they take it on faith that when they are told something is blue, they don't question it... They can not see it, measure it and so on... So by your logic, to the blind person the word blue is a useless word, hence the idea of blue does not exist...

No, blue is an adjective. It is a descriptive word. Blueness and consciousness are abstract nouns, insinuating something that exists, when I am arguing that nothing does. I'm strictly talking about abstract nouns as defined in the OP.

Are you trying to tell me that the color blue does not exist? Because that seems to be what you are basing your argument on. I think that deciding whether or not something is conscious based on parts of speech is silly.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Your brain is a biological tool, used to bridge the gap, in your opinion there is no bridge.

Hmmm, see its sad that you insist on stating as fact, when there is no absolute fact in what you are stating.

So by your reckoning my brain conjures up ideas?!

The brain is a learning tool which enbales the individual to make leaps in thinking, but the leaps are not mechanically driven, it is the mind which drives the thinking forward.

Of course this is all truely futile, partly because you are closed minded, but more so because you lack the expression required to cement your idea.

Ever heard of theroy of mind ?

It is an actual psychological term.

I'm thinking you may not have it, as it is the ability to perceive the world from another persons perspective.

I see your perspective, and I reject it, because you have brought nothing to the table that can convince me your perspective has "truth" attatched to it.

Basically your leap in thinking to me is illogical.

I take my leave now, not because of any reason your "brain" would conjure, but because its late where I live, and I have a school run to do in the morning.

However I shall not bow !

I understand that, but that is not the point... You are using a word that does not begin to describe the concept, to validate your belief... in short, you are splitting hairs. I only used that example to show the flaw in your argument. It is unfair to excuse an idea or concept because the words used to presently describe are weak.