Question for materialists

reply to post by mysticnoon

which basically means that consciousness is not dependant on physicality.

Then what is unconsciousness?

reply to post by sirnex

Then what is unconsciousness?

That is a medical term for a person's condition of unresponsiveness to sensory stimuli.

If someone is in a state of (medical) unconsciousness, this does not mean that consciousness ceases to exit; it simply means that the portion of the individual's mind which normally functions to provide information about the physical environment has been suspended. It says nothing about the consciousness itself within which the mind and all its information is contained; the mind itself being a content of consciousness.

I think your question highlights the difficulty of discussing consciousness without first defining some broad parameters of the term's usage.

reply to post by mysticnoon

I think your question highlights the difficulty of discussing consciousness without first defining some broad parameters of the term's usage.

Consciousness means aware.

Unconsciousness means unaware.

I don't think there is any difficulty in discussing those terms as they are defined unless someone is attempting to redefine those words as is the case of this thread. Consciousness does not mean, that which makes you, you.

reply to post by sirnex

Consciousness means aware.

Unconsciousness means unaware.

Your definition of consciousness is then firmly limited to subjective states of mental awareness. You are equating awareness with ordinary mental participation in the processing of information from the physical environment.

With this subjective view of consciousness, when this sensory information is inaccessible by the mind, you are said to be unconsciousness.

The pertinent question here is, does the suspension of mental informational processing of external stimuli mean that consciousness itself ceases to exist? If so, how does consciousness come into being again when mental processing of information continues?

Your simplistic approach to consciousness and unconsciousness fails to address any of the 'hard problems" of consciousness as faced by science and philosophy, but if you are interested in understanding the complexities of the problems, there are loads of resources on the subject freely available online, one of them being the original link which I posted.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by sirnex

 

Consciousness means aware.

Unconsciousness means unaware.

Your definition of consciousness is then firmly limited to subjective states of mental awareness. You are equating awareness with ordinary mental participation in the processing of information from the physical environment.

With this subjective view of consciousness, when this sensory information is inaccessible by the mind, you are said to be unconsciousness.

The pertinent question here is, does the suspension of mental informational processing of external stimuli mean that consciousness itself ceases to exist? If so, how does consciousness come into being again when mental processing of information continues?

Your simplistic approach to consciousness and unconsciousness fails to address any of the 'hard problems" of consciousness as faced by science and philosophy, but if you are interested in understanding the complexities of the problems, there are loads of resources on the subject freely available online, one of them being the original link which I posted.

You people are something else...

Consciousness is simply another word for aware.

Unconsciousness is simply another word for unaware.

IT DOES NOT IMPLY NOR MEAN MIND, IDENTITY, SELF, EGO, ID, nor any other concept. That is what those two words mean and what they are defined as and have been for a very long time now. Now, can we please stop redefining words and building arguments based on those redefinitions?

reply to post by sirnex

You people are something else...

Consciousness is simply another word for aware.

Unconsciousness is simply another word for unaware.

IT DOES NOT IMPLY NOR MEAN MIND, IDENTITY, SELF, EGO, ID, nor any other concept. That is what those two words mean and what they are defined as and have been for a very long time now. Now, can we please stop redefining words and building arguments based on those redefinitions?

While you may feel a subjective certainty about what constitutes consciousness, this is not shared by the scientific community, as you may discover if you read the entry in consciousness below:

Consciousness

As there is no clear definition of consciousness and no empirical measure exists to test for its presence, it has been argued that due to the nature of the problem of consciousness, empirical tests are intrinsically impossible.

You keep insisting that your concept of consciousness is the only one which is relevant, and you summarily dismiss all other views and definitions. It is difficult to have a conversation about consciousness when all other valid perspectives are ignored.

reply to post by sirnex


Any definition that could be given to you would be just another word. No matter what word someone hands to you, you will be able to say what is the definition of that, a never ending game, like a child saying 'But why, but why?', 'but why?' or 'What does that mean?'. Words do not describe the thing, a word is just a word. Word is really only a sound or a squiggle on a pc monitor or piece of paper, but somehow it means more to us than that. Meaning is like a sensing, like a feeling, an understanding, a cognizing, a knowing. Computers can not work with meanings, they don't understand meaning. Computers can only work with symbols.
The human brain (mind/thought) is no more than a computer, feed symbols in and get symbols out. The human brain is dualistic and works in opposites, good/bad, right/wrong, here/there, past/future. Feed a question to the brain, the answer is gonna be 1 or 0 (dual) like a computer, it will be this or that. Things are either good or bad, you are either happy or sad, this is how the thinking mind operates. It is no more than a machine.
The brain is no more than a repeater, it goes to school and has repeated to it information by repeaters, repeaters of information that have learned from other repeaters. The brain is conditioned, it is trained and is limited by what it has been fed in the past. It only knows what it has been taught. It has limited contents.
There is a knowing that the contents are limited this brings fear. This situation is known deep down so there is great urgency with humans to try to acquire more information because there is so much more to know, so much more to be had.
When it is seen that we are in fact more than a brain/mind and body, we can start to utilize the brain instead of it using us. The brain is driving you at the moment because you have put all of your trust in it. The brain drags you from this problem to the next problem, there is always something to solve, there is no peace from it.
The thoughts say 'why?' 'how?' 'if', 'but', 'when?' never satisfied with the answers that are presented, always throwing up more questions. It is a machine, a problem solving machine.
Can it know love? Can it appreciate a breath taking view, the beauty of a flower? No, there has to be a break, a space, a stopping of thought for the awareness of the present moment to be really seen and felt.
Thoughts are heard or seen or sensed by something within. Thoughts are appearances, they appear to something beyond the mind.
We move the thoughts around inside our heads, but what are we moving them around in? There must be space behind and around the thoughts.
The thoughts are not important, they are conditioned, they have been put there by outside influences. We know they can't all be trusted and we shift through them hoping we can arrange them better than others and if we do a good job we will be successful, we will be winners.
The mind works with winners and losers, it is dual, it has to be one or the other, i am either the winner or the loser. Peace of mind, or peace from mind? This whirling machine weighing everything up, seeking, searching for peace of mind, wants to know, it is it's mission.
Consciousness, god, this, now, present moment, the truth, the way, the path, awareness, being, intelligence- energy, at- one- ment, oneness all of these words point to what we are.
You are the container for it all, you can only ever experience what you experience. Believing there is anything else is a trap. What ever you are experiencing is the truth. Even the mind is just an experience, one thought at a time appearing, morphing into another thought, into another, into another.
Experiences come and pass, change and morph continually.
Consciousness is seing all the things pass. Without consciousness nothing can be seen.
Consciousness is the seer of things.
Seeing is not dualistic, seeing is instant without judgement.
When consciousness becomes aware of itself there is no rights, no wrongs, no goods, no bads. It just is.
There is peace from mind.

reply to post by mysticnoon

While you may feel a subjective certainty about what constitutes consciousness, this is not shared by the scientific community, as you may discover if you read the entry in consciousness below:

Link is broken, can you fix it?

You keep insisting that your concept of consciousness is the only one which is relevant, and you summarily dismiss all other views and definitions. It is difficult to have a conversation about consciousness when all other valid perspectives are ignored.

I don't dismiss any other views, I simply am asking that if one is going to claim one view is false and only their view can be the correct view that they then prove that view to be true. Your asking science to have every single answer to your questions, and you want it now. Science at the moment doesn't have the FULL answer and so you claim your view must by default be correct because science is lacking to explain the phenomena in full at the moment.

That's ignorant.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Right, a tree isn't a tree because it's a tree, I understand that concept. Yet the object, phenomena, things we aplly labels and definitions to, exist, but in order to describe them in a meaningful way we need language to do so. In this case, consciousness is defined as being aware and unconsciousness is define as not being aware. That is what those two words are defined as, what they are not defined as is that which makes you, you.

reply to post by sirnex


We believe the labels we apply to 'things', and then think that because it now has a name we know what it is. You said a tree isn't a tree because it is a tree. No, a tree has never been a tree. 'A tree' is a word, not a tree. Go look at a tree, it will be experience. It will be something but you would not be able to put into words what it really is. As soon as you put a word on it, named it, it will not be a true representation of what is really occuring. You will be making it up, fabrication, having the illusion of something solid, making something out of nothing. What is really seen is smeared all over, and then as soon as we name something we put a border, a box around it and it becomes a particular 'thing'.
The particular does not exist outside the framing and naming.

reply to post by sirnex

Science at the moment doesn't have the FULL answer and so you claim your view must by default be correct because science is lacking to explain the phenomena in full at the moment.

All I have been trying to show is the challenges faced by scholars and researchers in those fields addressing the concept and nature of consciousness. I make no claims that I have the "correct" understanding of consciousness; I am simply offering different perspectives, and especially questioning the consensual materialistic view of consciousness.

Personally, I have yet to encounter a theory of consciousness which bridges all the gaps, though some of them come pretty close, I think. At this point in time, I favour a combination of pan-experientialism, Chalmers’ dualism, the irreducibility of consciousness, and quantum consciousness, well, just for starters.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by sirnex

 

Science at the moment doesn't have the FULL answer and so you claim your view must by default be correct because science is lacking to explain the phenomena in full at the moment.

All I have been trying to show is the challenges faced by scholars and researchers in those fields addressing the concept and nature of consciousness. I make no claims that I have the "correct" understanding of consciousness; I am simply offering different perspectives, and especially questioning the consensual materialistic view of consciousness.

Personally, I have yet to encounter a theory of consciousness which bridges all the gaps, though some of them come pretty close, I think. At this point in time, I favour a combination of pan-experientialism, Chalmers’ dualism, the irreducibility of consciousness, and quantum consciousness, well, just for starters.

Let me ask this; Do you believe reality to be materialistic in nature with only consciousness having no materialistic explanation, or do you believe reality to be completely non materialistic?

Here.

If no party can come to a common definition of consciousness there's nothing to discuss. Agree to a definition or forever hold your peace.

Originally posted by 547000
Here.

If no party can come to a common definition of consciousness there's nothing to discuss. Agree to a definition or forever hold your peace.

edit on 24-4-2011 by 547000 because: link didn't work

The common definition is in every single dictionary. I simply choose to not redefine common meanings to common words.

reply to post by sirnex

Let me ask this; Do you believe reality to be materialistic in nature with only consciousness having no materialistic explanation, or do you believe reality to be completely non materialistic?

If by reality you mean this physical dimension, then my answer would be neither of the above. I support tithe quantum theory that physical objects are empty of objectively existing attributes until observed, where the observer is any entity (organic or inanimate) involved in an event with the observed.

I am not wholly within the camp which regards matter as a projection of human-centric consciousness, though I do believe that all matter is interconnected experientially and has its existence dependant on a primary ground of metaphysical omnipresent consciousness.

reply to post by sirnex

The common definition is in every single dictionary. I simply choose to not redefine common meanings to common words.

As this is the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum, then I suggest that philosophical and metaphysical definitions of consciousness are very relevant and pertinent to this discussion.

reply to post by mysticnoon

I support tithe quantum theory that physical objects are empty of objectively existing attributes until observed, where the observer is any entity (organic or inanimate) involved in an event with the observed.

Then you do not understand quantum physics. You will not find one scientific reference in which quantum physics states this. Quantum physics deals and only deals with how real, physical, material subatomic particles behave and shows how those particles behave differently than macroscopic objects.

No where does it state that things don't exist until observed, no where.

I am not wholly within the camp which regards matter as a projection of human-centric consciousness, though I do believe that all matter is interconnected experientially and has its existence dependant on a primary ground of metaphysical omnipresent consciousness.

And where did this omnipresent consciousness come from?

As this is the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum, then I suggest that philosophical and metaphysical definitions of consciousness are very relevant and pertinent to this discussion.

Where would I find that definition?

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

This doesn't make sense for two reasons.

1. From the materialist view consciousness is just an abstract concept.

It cannot be proven to exist scientifically.

2. "The illusion of consciousness" is an oxymoron.

The consciousness itself is beyond or underneath real or illusion. You are the consciousness.

reply to post by sirnex

No where does it state that things don't exist until observed, no where.

I did not say that quantum theory states that things don't exist until observed, I said that "physical objects are empty of objectively existing attributes until observed", which means that they cannot be assigned a specific attribute of both position and velocity until observed.

Or as Heisenberg states:

"If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle—and here the emphasis is on the word "accurate"—the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being...belongs to what is described."

- Werner Heisenberg, "Physics and Philosophy"

(Heisenberg was one of the primary theoretical physicists to contribute to quantum mechanics.)

And where did this omnipresent consciousness come from?

It is irreducible and non-regressive, it is the fundamental nature of reality, so it does no "come from" anywhere else.

Where would I find that definition?

I have previously posted links to the various definitions and concepts of consciousness which have substantial support.

Online papers on consciousness

Basically, the various theories can be reduced to three main categories, those that consider matter as primary (consciousness evolves from matter and is a function of matter), the dualist perspective which sees consciousness and matter as evolving in tandem, as it were, and the third view which sees consciousness as primary. There are numerous viewpoints and theories which are variations on those three themes, and combinations thereof.

reply to post by mysticnoon

I did not say that quantum theory states that things don't exist until observed, I said that "physical objects are empty of objectively existing attributes until observed", which means that they cannot be assigned a specific attribute of both position and velocity until observed.

That has nothing to do with physical attributes, like charge, spin, etc... just saying...

It is irreducible and non-regressive, it is the fundamental nature of reality, so it does no "come from" anywhere else.

So your asserting that this omnipresent consciousness has just always existed and that everything in reality is derived from it observing itself in some fashion that defies getting any evidence or explanation for? Your comfortable with that answer?

I have previously posted links to the various definitions and concepts of consciousness which have substantial support.

So consciousness is not just one being aware of oneself? Then what is the mind?