Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Consciousness Doesn't Exist.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


consciousness is the only thing that exists.. Everything is an epiphenomena of it..


What do you base this off of? What is the line of reasoning used to reach this conclusion?




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Your opening post was very pretty to read. You made me think about the whole pointing to ____ness words and made me question their viability as nouns.

However, happiness, consciousness, blueness, etc... those are all conditions which are nouns. Just like a disease. You can show me a rabid dog and you can show me the virus that causes rabies but can you point to rabies itself? No. But it is still a noun and it certainly exists.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
I agree with this. Nicely put. But in this case, the non-existence is what is butchering the language. We hopefully can agree there is no thing called consciousness. Only things that are conscious or awake.

There is a tree, we define it as a tree because it shares characteristic of all trees. There is no perceivable thing called consciousness, yet we name the the shared characteristics of all things that are conscious as something called consciousness.


Thank you... but I don't agree with where you take it.
I agree there is no "thing" called consciousness. I will NOT agree that there are "things" that are conscious or awake. This is a tricky thing to explain because you're still so cloaked in the illusion of language.

A "word" that carries a definition is simply an ephemeral according to your usage, concept, that is used to set some parameters on what a "Tree" should be. No Tree can be 100% *perfectly* defined... and in fact you can't *actually* tell where the "Tree" ends and the rest of "things" begin. The definition and word are conceptual MAPS, but they are not the TERRAIN. The terrain is one single "being" or "doing". Even that isn't able to actually define it, but only approximate it. Tao... Infinity... God... they are all trying to describe the same thing.

The modern scientific "word" is Consciousness, which is simply a re-definition of Spirit.

You can't define where one being that is conscious ends and the other starts. That "thing" is never the same "thing" from one moment to the next and the definition of it, were it to TRULY describe that "thing" would require including every other THING that that THING depends upon to exist, as well as everything those things depend on to exist, ad infinitum. For without all the *other* things, that one *thing* wouldn't be the *thing* it is, it would be a different *thing* with a different definition that contains all the *things* it is related to (even if it's only related to "nothing"... that must be included in the definition of *that thing*).

There is one "thing" that is Conscious, and it is Existence itself. Existence IS Consciousness. Consciousness IS Existence. Nothing "unconscious" exists.

But so long as you continue to try to walk on the map, you will keep overlooking the terrain.

There is a "happening" (thing) called "existence" (doing) which is "conscious" (being).

Namaste.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 

Or to put it another way: A tree is to the surface of the earth as a cell is to your body.

When putting on one "part" at a time, at what point does a "car" become a Car? Who sets the minimum requirement for the definition to be true?

When adding more to a Car, at what point does it cease to be a Car? When you add the robot walking legs? The wings? The hover capability? The 4th dimensional time warper? If it still has wheels and an engine and people can drive it is all the rest extra? But isn't it some different "thing" now? Which "thing" is it? Is it a "time machine" or a "car"?

Language is a tool built to communicate but also a game designed to make it very easy to get you lost in it and trap you in it.

Drop the language and descriptions and just LOOK.

That's your PROOF.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
it is a thing

its pattern of electrochemical events in the brain, neurons synapses ect they are physically a thing.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Your opening post was very pretty to read. You made me think about the whole pointing to ____ness words and made me question their viability as nouns.

However, happiness, consciousness, blueness, etc... those are all conditions which are nouns. Just like a disease. You can show me a rabid dog and you can show me the virus that causes rabies but can you point to rabies itself? No. But it is still a noun and it certainly exists.


Absolutely right sir. Well done and great argument. This is the problem of universals and goes back to Plato and Aristotle. We are only in the habit of naming things and events. Rabies, as a noun, encompasses what we consider rabies—the cause, the subject and the result. Without one of those aspects, rabies couldn't exist logically. With the idea of consciousness as something separate from the body, consciousness is itself the cause, the subject and the result—which is not logically sound.

Great thoughts.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Consciousness is itself the cause, the subject and the result.

Great thoughts.

Fixed that for ya!!! hehe


------

Consciousness is the beginning and the end. You haven't taken your foundation of demanding proof of consciousness and run that simulation out to the logical conclusion yet.

Let's invert the question and put the burden of proof on you:
- Describe what can be proven to exist when nothing is conscious.
- Prove that there is something existing when nothing is conscious.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
There is no perceivable thing called consciousness, yet we name the the shared characteristics of all things that are conscious as something called consciousness.

Have you ever had an epiphany? Show me the epiphany. Not the documentation of it, the epiphany itself. Show me where it started and where it ended. Help me perceive this epiphany directly the same way you did.

An epiphany is an experience. An experience is a Noun.
Consciousness is an experience. An experience is a Noun.

If you can't perceive consciousness, then we're all falling for the best forum bot ever.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Consciousness is itself the cause, the subject and the result.

Great thoughts.

Fixed that for ya!!! hehe


------

Consciousness is the beginning and the end. You haven't taken your foundation of demanding proof of consciousness and run that simulation out to the logical conclusion yet.

Let's invert the question and put the burden of proof on you:
- Describe what can be proven to exist when nothing is conscious.
- Prove that there is something existing when nothing is conscious.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


The only thing I'm doing is not denying common sense and asking for a little verification.

If a man comes down with amnesia, and forgets his whole life and is no longer conscious of what happened to him in the past, who in their sane mind have the right to declare that he hasn't existed up until this point?

If a comet comes once every 200 years, and for at least 50 years it is forgotten until it re-appears again, did the comet not exist when it was forgotten?

An archeologist discovers an ancient tomb, which has long been forgotten for thousands of years, according to your line of reasoning, that tomb only existed thousands of years ago, somehow vanished and became non-existent while no one was conscious of it, then magically came back into existence when re-discovered. This defies all common sense.

The burden of proof is not on me.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FuturePeace
it is a thing

its pattern of electrochemical events in the brain, neurons synapses ect they are physically a thing.


“They are a thing” is a contradictory statement. How can plural ‘they’ be a singular thing?
edit on 16-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


just like the plural sum of body parts and organs total 1 human body



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Worst, post..... EVER. Blueness really? the state of being blue? so i should really just say anyone who listens to r&b, blues or jazz. Using hypocritical thinking will get you nowhere. Stating that the bowl with blue still visible in it is "blueness" and then asking someone if they could point out blueness somewhere, but they only pointed out objects that were blue, dude seriously?! LOL why dont you just go get some blueberry kool-aid? close enough rite?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronVelvet
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Worst, post..... EVER. Blueness really? the state of being blue? so i should really just say anyone who listens to r&b, blues or jazz. Using hypocritical thinking will get you nowhere. Stating that the bowl with blue still visible in it is "blueness" and then asking someone if they could point out blueness somewhere, but they only pointed out objects that were blue, dude seriously?! LOL why dont you just go get some blueberry kool-aid? close enough rite?



Not many people are capable of philosophy. Most don't come out and say it though.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FuturePeace
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


just like the plural sum of body parts and organs total 1 human body


And 7billion bodies equal 1 human race. I get it.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
The only thing I'm doing is not denying common sense and asking for a little verification.

If a man comes down with amnesia, and forgets his whole life and is no longer conscious of what happened to him in the past, who in their sane mind have the right to declare that he hasn't existed up until this point?

If a comet comes once every 200 years, and for at least 50 years it is forgotten until it re-appears again, did the comet not exist when it was forgotten?

An archeologist discovers an ancient tomb, which has long been forgotten for thousands of years, according to your line of reasoning, that tomb only existed thousands of years ago, somehow vanished and became non-existent while no one was conscious of it, then magically came back into existence when re-discovered. This defies all common sense.

The burden of proof is not on me.


All of your descriptions still require someone to be conscious the entire time. Consciousness still *existed*.

I didn't say Consciousness had to be aware of everything that existed, only that Consciousness is required to *prove* that said thing exists at said time. A consciousness is required to prove anything.

Yes, you are taking it on faith that if every single conscious entity in existence were to cease being conscious that anything continues to exist. You are taking it on faith because you can't prove that there is anything existing.

Working on video games I can make a game start at any "time point" I want depending on how the "logic" is setup. I can go from 1:00 to 2:00 with no time passing, but to the game will continue from 2:00 as if the entire time of 1:00 and 2:00 had passed.

A Consciousness is required for Proof to even be a common sense term. You are asking for Proof. Only Consciousness can seek or provide a proof. "Rocks" don't need proof. Only Consciousness needs proof.

You are the sum total of everything in the universe coming together to create you, yet you still think "you" are defined by the boundaries of your skin. Well "you" are also spread out all over hard drives on the internet. In the memories of other people. Your heat and waste is spread all over the planet. They are all "you"... or were at one point before "you" removed them from "you"... but did you cease to be you once you removed those things from you?

You are talking to a mirror asking the mirror to show you a mirror. It's a riot to watch.


You are your own proof.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
The only thing I'm doing is not denying common sense and asking for a little verification.

If a man comes down with amnesia, and forgets his whole life and is no longer conscious of what happened to him in the past, who in their sane mind have the right to declare that he hasn't existed up until this point?

If a comet comes once every 200 years, and for at least 50 years it is forgotten until it re-appears again, did the comet not exist when it was forgotten?

An archeologist discovers an ancient tomb, which has long been forgotten for thousands of years, according to your line of reasoning, that tomb only existed thousands of years ago, somehow vanished and became non-existent while no one was conscious of it, then magically came back into existence when re-discovered. This defies all common sense.

The burden of proof is not on me.


All of your descriptions still require someone to be conscious the entire time. Consciousness still *existed*.

I didn't say Consciousness had to be aware of everything that existed, only that Consciousness is required to *prove* that said thing exists at said time. A consciousness is required to prove anything.

Yes, you are taking it on faith that if every single conscious entity in existence were to cease being conscious that anything continues to exist. You are taking it on faith because you can't prove that there is anything existing.

Working on video games I can make a game start at any "time point" I want depending on how the "logic" is setup. I can go from 1:00 to 2:00 with no time passing, but to the game will continue from 2:00 as if the entire time of 1:00 and 2:00 had passed.

A Consciousness is required for Proof to even be a common sense term. You are asking for Proof. Only Consciousness can seek or provide a proof. "Rocks" don't need proof. Only Consciousness needs proof.

You are the sum total of everything in the universe coming together to create you, yet you still think "you" are defined by the boundaries of your skin. Well "you" are also spread out all over hard drives on the internet. In the memories of other people. Your heat and waste is spread all over the planet. They are all "you"... or were at one point before "you" removed them from "you"... but did you cease to be you once you removed those things from you?

You are talking to a mirror asking the mirror to show you a mirror. It's a riot to watch.


You are your own proof.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


No you stated that consciousness is a prerequisite of existence. I stated existence is a prerequisite of things being conscious. Of course you need to be conscious to "prove" anything exists. Who would do the proving, and who would you be proving it to if there weren't beings who were conscious?

You're making claims that consciousness, not only being something that is self-caused, is the cause of everything. It's painful to watch.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by FuturePeace
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 

just like the plural sum of body parts and organs total 1 human body

And 7billion bodies equal 1 human race. I get it.

Ahh... so we agree then?

The human race doesn't exist.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
No you stated that consciousness is a prerequisite of existence. I stated existence is a prerequisite of things being conscious. Of course you need to be conscious to "prove" anything exists. Who would do the proving, and who would you be proving it to if there weren't beings who were conscious?

You're making claims that consciousness, not only being something that is self-caused, is the cause of everything. It's painful to watch.

I absolutely did not say that.

I said that Consciousness IS Existence. They go hand in hand, one does not happen without the other.

Go back to the Epiphany post because that's the one that actually uses the structure of the rules you wish to stay constrained in to demonstrate the limits of your rule system.

The Universe is not bound by human logic structures. Human logic is constantly being updated when understanding expands to show the limits of the former logic structure.

Human Logic requires there to be a "cause" and an "event", but the universe doesn't give a damn about that and continues to be its own cause and event.

Even "traditional" science which rejects the idea of the universe being conscious... still asserts that the universe is its own cause and event.

If you think that something being its own cause and event is absurd and logically unsound, then resolve the age old paradox of the material universe you walk through "beginning" and what "was" "before".

Namaste
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
The only thing I'm doing is not denying common sense and asking for a little verification.

Human Logic and Common Sense in the absence of adequate Information (usually to deficiency of tools or education), are what lead people to believe the sun rotates around the earth, that meteors COULDN'T come from space, etc.

Be careful being too attached to your time period's Human Logic and Common Sense. It has an absolutely awful track record.

Again, if you need verification then I need to thank and congratulate whoever put together your bot program.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
No you stated that consciousness is a prerequisite of existence. I stated existence is a prerequisite of things being conscious. Of course you need to be conscious to "prove" anything exists. Who would do the proving, and who would you be proving it to if there weren't beings who were conscious?

You're making claims that consciousness, not only being something that is self-caused, is the cause of everything. It's painful to watch.

I absolutely did not say that.

I said that Consciousness IS Existence. They go hand in hand, one does not happen without the other.

Go back to the Epiphany post because that's the one that actually uses the structure of the rules you wish to stay constrained in to demonstrate the limits of your rule system.

The Universe is not bound by human logic structures. Human logic is constantly being updated when understanding expands to show the limits of the former logic structure.

Human Logic requires there to be a "cause" and an "event", but the universe doesn't give a damn about that and continues to be its own cause and event.

Even "traditional" science which rejects the idea of the universe being conscious... still asserts that the universe is its own cause and event. If you think that something being its own cause and event is absurd and logically unsound, then resolve the paradox of the material world "beginning".

Namaste.


If consciousness IS existence, then you don't know what the definition of consciousness is, and you're using the word wrongly. Existence isn't being awake. By this logic, everything that is unconscious doesn't exist, which we know is ridiculous. If the existence of the universe is dependent on the conscious life of one of its planets, in one of its billions of galaxies then I will have made a grave error in my assertions. But your solipsism has yet to convince me.





new topics




 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join