Originally posted by senselessness
Incorrect. The state of being does exist within the being, and the being experiences it. If it didn't exist, then the being wouldn't be awake,
aware, and experience the five senses, and be conscious.
Incorrect. If the being didn't exist, there would be nothing to be conscious. If the body didn't exist, the being wouldn't be awake, aware, and
experience the five senses and be conscious. Consciousness—something you are arguing is a tangible and measurable thing or object—is not a real
factor in something being awake or conscious, because it is a non-entity. The only real factor is the body being awake and conscious. The body itself
is real, while there is no measurable, definable and observable thing
called consciousness at play. I ask that you show me consciousness, you
can only show me things that are conscious, not bodies full of something called consciousness. I ask you to show me forgetfulness, you can only show
me things that are forgetful, not bodies full of something called forgetfulness.
I'm sorry but that is sort of a ridiculous thing to say...
"Consciousness" and being "conscious" are the same thing. They are just two different words designed to be used in different structures of
sentences. One is an adjective used to help describe a type of conscious, and the other is a noun used to refer to a type of conscious.
"The man regained a conscious state."
"The man regained consciousness."
Both the above sentences have the same exact meaning, and are the same thing.
This is good logic, and these are the holes in this idea I'm looking for. Despite your condescending attitude, your insights are useful.
Nonetheless you cannot show me something called consciousness as if it existed, you can only show me things that are conscious or things that are
awake. In your example, you assert the man regained consciousness, and that consciousness is a thing. The man appears conscious, so he must have some
consciousness. But during this struggle to become awake, did he really gather something called consciousness? Or did he gather the necessary
attributes to be classified as conscious?
I'm not sure how anyone can logically imagine a thing called consciousness, when there is nothing there, or nothing exuded or gathered or stored that
would constitute a real tangible thing. Consciousness is an idea, a classification, a refinement of language which serves to speed up conveyance and
understanding of a state of appearance. Not something that actually exists in the universe.
Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Being awake isn't a thing or an object.
Yes it is, it is life itself. It technically is ALL things and objects that you will ever experience when you are awake.
Then call it life, and not consciousness. Why call it something it isn't? Simple as that. Thats what I'm getting at. The word consciousness only
further serves to mystify that which is self-evident.
Bluness and blue are the same thing.... When you ask someone to point to "blueness" they point to things that are blue because they are the same
thing. Blueness is a range of blue. A range of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
edit on 15-7-2012 by senselessness
because: (no reason given)
Blue is an adjective, a descriptive word used to modify an actual thing, a noun. Blueness is an abstract noun. Not the same thing. In fact, not a
thing at all. Blueness is an abstract noun, insinuating something exists that is called blueness, when the only thing that exists are the things that
appear blue, not blueness itself.