It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for materialists

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

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.


I disagree with point number one. and point number two is tenuous without evidence. You keep saying one is conscious but you still can't even come up with a way in which one could even prove that to be true instead of being an illusion of consciousness. I still have no reason to believe you are conscious.




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
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.


I disagree with point number one.



So what is the scientific definition of consciousness, and where was it proven?

If you think science has explained consciousness, you're off your rocker again. I'm going to have to ask that question you hate so much....


Can I see your sources?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



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 don't know that I would say that everything in reality is omnipresent consciousness observing itself, but I do think that everything arises within that consciousness. It is like everything is a content of omnipresent consciousness, in a similar way that all our thoughts are contents of our individual consciousness.

According to some forms of mystic teachings, there does exist a means to "get evidence" of this omni-consciousness, though that involves the inner domain of experience.

Am I comfortable with the answer above? Yes, sure. Are you?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by sirnex
 



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 don't know that I would say that everything in reality is omnipresent consciousness observing itself, but I do think that everything arises within that consciousness. It is like everything is a content of omnipresent consciousness, in a similar way that all our thoughts are contents of our individual consciousness.

According to some forms of mystic teachings, there does exist a means to "get evidence" of this omni-consciousness, though that involves the inner domain of experience.

Am I comfortable with the answer above? Yes, sure. Are you?



As you probably know by now, I don't trust personal experiences of anyone, not even my own. If it can't be experienced or observed and verified, then it probably isn't real at all.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
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.


I disagree with point number one.



So what is the scientific definition of consciousness, and where was it proven?

If you think science has explained consciousness, you're off your rocker again. I'm going to have to ask that question you hate so much....


Can I see your sources?


Already posted it.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you think science has explained consciousness, you're off your rocker again. I'm going to have to ask that question you hate so much....


Can I see your sources?


Already posted it.


Oh, my bad.


You've pulled this on me many times before.



Can you please simply direct me to where you have already posted it?

(My guess is no, you can't. We'll see though...)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, I'm not going to feed with the internet trolls. Get your finger out of your lazy rectal cavity and look for it. K? Have fun now!



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



As you probably know by now, I don't trust personal experiences of anyone, not even my own.


Well, yes, I can understand how any individual experience may not correspond to reality.


If it can't be experienced or observed and verified, then it probably isn't real at all.


I cannot disagree with what you write here, and I would go one step further and say that even if something is experienced, observed and verified, it still may not correspond with reality. There are numerous discarded scientific theories which support my stated notion.

The thing is, at some point we can either accept that reality can be know, or that reality can never be known.

If we accept that reality can be known, we can then choose the method which we think would give us the closest approximation to reality.

Materialists choose the tools of physical science, which is always dependent on the senses and the mind to relay and assess the information correctly.

There also exists the "science" of mysticism, which claims that reality can be know by direct perception, eliminating the potentially distorting vehicles of the senses and the mind.

One can also choose to believe that reality can never be known, but I think that is a dead end, so to speak.

And of course, there are always the options offered by the many teachings of religion which basically say that you need to wait till you're dead before reality is revealed in its full glory.

So anyway, where were we..?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
No, I'm not going to feed with the internet trolls. Get your finger out of your lazy rectal cavity and look for it. K? Have fun now!



So can you explain how I was able to successfully predict that you wouldn't actually be able to show a source for your claim?


MysticNoon, have you seen Sirnex post a source explaining consciousness using the scientific method?


(We both already know science has not explained the phenomena of consciousness.)

This "I already posted it... go look for it!" crap got old after the 20th time in the last thread I encountered you in. You'll spend days on end arguing on these threads but constantly refuse to show sources for your claims. If anyone is trolling, it's obviously you.

edit on 24-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



MysticNoon, have you seen Sirnex post a source explaining consciousness using the scientific method?


No, but I could have missed it. I haven't followed each post from the beginning of the thread.

sirnex has stated that he accepts the "common dictionary" definition of consciousness, which may be "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings".



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 



Well, yes, I can understand how any individual experience may not correspond to reality.


So then you understand why science doesn't work of the honor system and why science could care less about personal experience alone in relation to what reality is?


I cannot disagree with what you write here, and I would go one step further and say that even if something is experienced, observed and verified, it still may not correspond with reality. There are numerous discarded scientific theories which support my stated notion.


Name one and I'll look into it.


The thing is, at some point we can either accept that reality can be know, or that reality can never be known.


I personally believe that reality can be known, in time. We clearly don't have all the answers right now, but to sit there and claim that reality is not material because we can't explain why we're aware, why we have a mind, why we are more sophisticated tool users or why we have highly developed capacity for language is just ridiculous to me.


If we accept that reality can be known, we can then choose the method which we think would give us the closest approximation to reality.


What method would you propose? The honor system and who sells the most books and dvds?


Materialists choose the tools of physical science, which is always dependent on the senses and the mind to relay and assess the information correctly.


That's untrue. My sensory organs can't detect gamma rays, nor can yours. Yet we know gamma rays exist due to physical sciences. Our science is not dependent upon what our sensory organs can detect alone and never has been. It's been limited by our technologies.

Unless you can see in the infrared frequency, I'm sure you'll agree with me there too.


There also exists the "science" of mysticism, which claims that reality can be know by direct perception, eliminating the potentially distorting vehicles of the senses and the mind.


Can you directly perceive a quark? Or a chemical reaction? Or how about the physics behind a supernova?


One can also choose to believe that reality can never be known, but I think that is a dead end, so to speak.


I agree with you there, taking that stance is just admitting defeat and giving up on discovering many amazing things.


And of course, there are always the options offered by the many teachings of religion which basically say that you need to wait till you're dead before reality is revealed in its full glory.


Yea, a bunch of ancient ideas from druggy shamans evolved over the centuries into a political system to control the masses leading to forms of government to take up that role whilst allowing the priests to have some minor control.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by sirnex
No, I'm not going to feed with the internet trolls. Get your finger out of your lazy rectal cavity and look for it. K? Have fun now!



So can you explain how I was able to successfully predict that you wouldn't actually be able to show a source for your claim?


MysticNoon, have you seen Sirnex post a source explaining consciousness using the scientific method?


(We both already know science has not explained the phenomena of consciousness.)

This "I already posted it... go look for it!" crap got old after the 20th time in the last thread I encountered you in. You'll spend days on end arguing on these threads but constantly refuse to show sources for your claims. If anyone is trolling, it's obviously you.

edit on 24-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


You didn't predict anything. Like I said, I already posted my stance on what consciousness is, not my problem if you enjoy keeping your finger up your rectal cavity too much. That's something you gotta work out yourself.


OK, done feeding the troll in this thread too. You have a good one!



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
sirnex has stated that he accepts the "common dictionary" definition of consciousness, which may be "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings".


Which is still obviously different than a scientific explanation of consciousness.

And he has no source for his claim that it is understood, obviously, or he would have posted it. Trust me, I have seen him pull this gag many times. Then he throws temper tantrums chock full of insults like you just saw above with the "anal cavity" comment he immediately hurled at me when I first asked him for his source.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You didn't predict anything.


Yes friend, please read above, where it is very obvious:


Can you please simply direct me to where you have already posted it?

(My guess is no, you can't. We'll see though...)



And lo and behold, no, you did not show where you posted a source for your claim.



Now stop trolling for a second and realize how stupid your whole position is.

You will continue to spend days on end arguing with me, and yet a 1-minute retrieval of a source you claim to have posted earlier is impossible for you.

You are transparent as hell. You make baseless claims without sources and then when you're called on it you lie and throw temper tantrums.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



What method would you propose [to know reality]? The honor system and who sells the most books and dvds?


I have endeavoured to engage in a rational debate with you, and nowhere have I suggested or even hinted that reality can be known through popular authors of books or DVD's, yet you persist in insinuating that this is my preferred approach. Why this irrelevant focus on popular publications?


My sensory organs can't detect gamma rays, nor can yours. Yet we know gamma rays exist due to physical sciences. Our science is not dependent upon what our sensory organs can detect alone and never has been. It's been limited by our technologies.


To repeat my own statement:

"Materialists choose the tools of physical science, which is always dependent on the senses and the mind to relay and assess the information correctly."


In what way are scientific findings not dependent on our senses and mind? Even with the help of technology, we still rely on the mind to ask the questions, create instruments to help us make measurements and determine the answers to our questions, and finally create theories based on those findings. Mind is used at practically every stage of the process, either directly or indirectly, and our senses are an essential tool for the input of the information from the material world.


Can you directly perceive a quark? Or a chemical reaction? Or how about the physics behind a supernova?


This is all information about physical reality, and our science is reasonably competent at furnishing much of this data. However, science reaches its limits in the sphere of consciousness and meta-physics, and it is here that a more integral science would have its uses.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Which is still obviously different than a scientific explanation of consciousness.

And he has no source for his claim that it is understood, obviously, or he would have posted it.


Unless a person takes the time to read an in-depth article or two on consciousness, especially the challenges faced by the science of consciousness, then it is understandable that the person may be stuck on the everyday consensual concept of consciousness as simply "being awake and aware".

I guess that is what I have tried to do, is offer some points of consideration, but it seems that I have not made much ground in trying to bring a more comprehensive overview of consciousness.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
I guess that is what I have tried to do, is offer some points of consideration, but it seems that I have not made much ground in trying to bring a more comprehensive overview of consciousness.


Your approach deserves appreciation but unfortunately I think it's a wasted effort. Remember you are talking to a person who immediately began talking about fingers in my ass when I simply asked him for a source for his claims.

Anyway, simply asking him to provide sources for his own nonsense is the quickest way to shut down this particular troll, as demonstrated by the post I just mentioned. He wants to act like he is the Messiah of Science and so the fact that no science actually supports his claims infuriates him.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbr11
 


All i can say after following this thread for some time now is, we are fascinated by the feeling of frustration and anger, we are fascinated by the need to keep our frustrations under check and maybe we are learning to express ourselves more clearly. (When i use the word 'we' i mean consciousness.) At no point have we experienced any 'other'. All that has been experienced was within ones own consciousness, in your own bubble. Sinex has really got us all going, the energies moving. There is no one called sinex, just sensations. I expect if you were to hear the word sinex now there would be a conditioned response. All that is known is what you are feeling. Sinex does not exist as a 'thing' (material, thing ,person, solid object) only a passing sensation.
This bubble where all sensations are experienced is all there is.
Just the bubble. The bubble could be another name for consciousness.
As far as i know there is no other bubble, there could be but all i know is this bubble.

A friend wrote on my wipe board the other day:
Just as you get your life sorted, the devil jumps up and farts in your face.

I quickly crossed out you and your (because they are not true) and then crossed out devil (not true either).
From this i got:
Life is god farting. Then changed it to:
God is smelling his fart.
edit on 25-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


That's an interesting perspective and I appreciate you sharing it.

I see you have suffered to post on an internet forum in order to share this message. So maybe you can understand why we suffer through Sirnex's posts too.

There is a lot of energy moving, you are correct. Not just here but throughout the whole world right now. Everything seems agitated.

It helps getting the blood flowing. It's healthy.







posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You keep saying one is conscious but you still can't even come up with a way in which one could even prove that to be true instead of being an illusion of consciousness. I still have no reason to believe you are conscious.


I already said, many times, that you cannot prove any consciousness exists beyond your own.

So I can't prove it to you.

But the idea that my own consciousness is an illusion is a fundamental contradiction.

Illusion vs reality is all consciousness.




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join