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.

 

Consciousness Doesn't Exist.

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:25 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.

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)


Is it wrong to ask for some verification before accepting something as undeniable truth? You are bound by the same common sense and logic I am, yet your conclusions defy logic and common sense. Out of curiosity, what are the reasons behind you falling in line behind a theory when you didn't apply your own logic and common sense?




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Thank you Sub for the good articulations on the subject in the OP.

I didn't read beyond the first few replies obviously because it became absurd and trivial and dare I say, typical?
Anyways I'm just gonna reply to your opener for now, and I have to say it's pretty good stuff.

You are on the money in regards to the distinctions between adjectives and nouns, and although it may seem rather simplistic, truth be told the majority of people refuse to acknowledge the correction in terms of their misguided emotions (by religious fantastical concepts).

This is the literal and figurative explanation for "Why" our society is so screwed up and "backwards".
Through common lingo, we have all been subtly misled into actually saying things incorrectly on a massive scale. Our language structures are botched and mutilated.
George Carlin and other great comedians of our era have pointed this out in countless ways.

If you cannot think straight, than how can you possibly accomplish the correct set of objectives than other by pure chance?

Clearly it seems, one would have far better odds at tapping into their potentials had they looked for these backwards sayings, and sought to identify exactly which way it was misused, and apply the corrections where needed.

Often in recent times I have pondered how simple and effective a program it would be, had it's implementation been purposely devised over the last century or longer. The masses, over time with little data keeping or care, would eventually be indoctrinated into the "double speak" or "reverse think".

It's not always so obvious so it pays to act as a detective and search for clues in even the most innocent appearing of sources.

Anyways, good post OP.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
The burden of proof is not on me.


This is how the burden of proof works.

Person A makes the claim "I believe X to be true".
Person B makes the request "prove it".

You are claiming that "things" exist when there is no consciousness existing.

I've requested you to prove it. I know it's impossible for you to prove right now, but that doesn't give you the justification to claim anything except you *believe* (aka take on faith given your understanding of the world) that they do continue to exist even if nothing is conscious.

------

Let's explore absurd presumptions:

Something without consciousness... therefore following *precise* mechanical rules which can not be violated... somehow went from "doing nothing at all" to "doing everything". I'm not talking the "quantum fluctuations that may have resulted in the Big Bang blah blah"... I'm talking what even provided the "activity" of the quantum fluctuations in the first place.

At some point your logic and common sense linear cause/effect structure *must* reach a zero point where absolutely nothing just spontaneously and without any input from the outside... changed.

Yes, that seems a perfectly reasonable foundation to build upon, despite it violating every rule of energy conservation, momentum, etc that a material founded philosophy depends upon.

Your machine changed from doing nothing (not even existing) to doing everything. Or it has always existed doing exactly what it has always done and nothing is outside of it therefore it is its own beginning and end, cause and effect. Everything it does it does it itself and "no other". It somehow did this automatically despite an infinite amount of time the programming saying to do nothing. If it somehow had the built in programming to do nothing for a long time then briefly do "something", the linear question that rejects self-created existence... must then ask the question of where THAT rule came from.

It is a vantage point that always paints anyone who relies on it into a corner so long as they cling to linear thinking.

Consciousness which Happens to Exist (and always has existed)... is the only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing, to "change" to do something.

No non-self caused mechanical explanation will ever suffice without always leaving one additional "but what before?"

Namaste.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Is it wrong to ask for some verification before accepting something as undeniable truth? You are bound by the same common sense and logic I am, yet your conclusions defy logic and common sense. Out of curiosity, what are the reasons behind you falling in line behind a theory when you didn't apply your own logic and common sense?


No, but I asked you to provide verification of an Epiphany. Provide verification of a Thought.

You are trying to reject the "existence" of a "happening", which is ultimately rejecting the reality of the movement of the "things" you are attached to.

The "happening" *is* the existence of all the "things".

Be careful when trying to demand that the more limited viewpoint is the more common sense one. It is common sense for the Flatlander to reject the "logic" of 3D, but that doesn't make the Flatlander's limited explanation of what's possible, true, or logical... the truth.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Consciousness which Happens to Exist (and always has existed)... is the only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing, to "change" to do something.

I disagree. The only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing to "change" is the physical force that caused it. Not something called consciousness. Lightning can burn a tree. An asteroid can hit the earth. Water can move a stone. Nebulas can create stars. This can happen in places completely void of consciousness.

edit on 16-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Consciousness which Happens to Exist (and always has existed)... is the only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing, to "change" to do something.

I disagree. The only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing to "change" is the physical force that caused it. Not something called consciousness. Lightning can burn a tree. An asteroid can hit the earth. Water can move a stone. Nebulas can create stars. This can happen completely in places void of consciousness.

Again the basics: What caused the physical force that caused the "thing doing nothing" to change?
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   


I disagree.


And I Sir disagree with you. You are in error. My own 'considerable' experiences in this field cannot be negated by your opinions. If consciousness did not exist, I would not be able to type this because I would be dead. Now, I really can't be bothered to type all this down. The body of work would be immense. You either take it on trust and consider that, yes...you could be wrong, or ignore this post.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Is it wrong to ask for some verification before accepting something as undeniable truth? You are bound by the same common sense and logic I am, yet your conclusions defy logic and common sense. Out of curiosity, what are the reasons behind you falling in line behind a theory when you didn't apply your own logic and common sense?


No, but I asked you to provide verification of an Epiphany. Provide verification of a Thought.

You are trying to reject the "existence" of a "happening", which is ultimately rejecting the reality of the movement of the "things" you are attached to.

The "happening" *is* the existence of all the "things".

Be careful when trying to demand that the more limited viewpoint is the more common sense one. It is common sense for the Flatlander to reject the "logic" of 3D, but that doesn't make the Flatlander's limited explanation of what's possible, true, or logical... the truth.
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


Here's the definition of Epiphany: an experience of sudden and striking realization. People have these all the time. They are quantifiable. So we label it as a noun. Do people have consciousness? What's there to have? What is quantifiable about an abstract noun?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Consciousness which Happens to Exist (and always has existed)... is the only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing, to "change" to do something.

I disagree. The only thing that can cause something that is eternally doing nothing to "change" is the physical force that caused it. Not something called consciousness. Lightning can burn a tree. An asteroid can hit the earth. Water can move a stone. Nebulas can create stars. This can happen completely in places void of consciousness.

Again the basics: What caused the physical force that caused the "thing doing nothing" to change?
edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


So you agree that it wasn't consciousness in my examples but physical forces which caused them to move. What's there to argue about? Are you saying consciousness made the wind blow, made the asteroid hit the earth? This is getting a little too far out there.



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

Originally posted by symbolon


I disagree.


And I Sir disagree with you. You are in error. My own 'considerable' experiences in this field cannot be negated by your opinions. If consciousness did not exist, I would not be able to type this because I would be dead. Now, I really can't be bothered to type all this down. The body of work would be immense. You either take it on trust and consider that, yes...you could be wrong, or ignore this post.


Please share how you conclude a thing called consciousness exists. I would enjoy reading it.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
Again the basics: What caused the physical force that caused the "thing doing nothing" to change?

So you agree that it wasn't consciousness in my examples but physical forces which caused them to move. What's there to argue about? Are you saying consciousness made the wind blow, made the asteroid hit the earth? This is getting a little too far out there.

I'm trying to get you to explore your logic structure fully and stop turning a blind eye to the holes you don't want to see.

If there was a physical force that caused the universe you walk in to "begin"... what caused *that* force to begin? I'm asking you to trace your cause/effect concept to the most fundamental cause as you see it.

You have stated you reject the scientifically, logically, and philosophically explorable concept for something which is its own Cause and Effect. You reject Consciousness being its own Cause and Effect, but following your physical rule system, we need to figure out how your mechanical forces avoid being their own Cause and Effect and how this mechanical system "changed" from "nothing" to "everything" without any input from the outside.

Your example still required input from "somewhere else" for the change to happen. What is your first "force" that caused the first "change" in the cause/effect chain?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Imagine reality is a 3D interactive screen... Within this 3D interactive screen is everything you could possibly perceive, from the perspective of your own body. Your hands, your feet, your thoughts, your emotions, your feelings and sensations, your mom, your dad, your neighbor, your idea of who you are, literally everything that could possibly be perceivced in the physical reality. Who is it that is aware of this 3D interactive screen?? It isn't your brain, because your brain and everything it does is part of whats being perceived by the perceiver which we call consciousness. Can the seer be seen?

You say that our brain is our reality, that our body is conscious.

I say that there is one consciousness, that each of our individual brains presents this one consciousness with a different filter with which it is experiencing itself. Life is all about perspective friend, and a constantly changing one at that, no matter how slow or fast it appears to go, all that really exists is awareness.

We are the sky, infinte, without set boundaries. Life (and everything that is perceived) would be the clouds that are constantly coming and going, changing shape, becoming thunderstorms, or completely gone altogether.

That's my two cents anyways



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
Again the basics: What caused the physical force that caused the "thing doing nothing" to change?

So you agree that it wasn't consciousness in my examples but physical forces which caused them to move. What's there to argue about? Are you saying consciousness made the wind blow, made the asteroid hit the earth? This is getting a little too far out there.

I'm trying to get you to explore your logic structure fully and stop turning a blind eye to the holes you don't want to see.

If there was a physical force that caused the universe you walk in to "begin"... what caused *that* force to begin? I'm asking you to trace your cause/effect concept to the most fundamental cause as you see it.


Maybe another physical force? Or is that too difficult to conceive of as it eliminates the possibility of consciousness as the perpetrator? What caused the consciousness you imagine started all things?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
I'm trying to get you to explore your logic structure fully and stop turning a blind eye to the holes you don't want to see.

If there was a physical force that caused the universe you walk in to "begin"... what caused *that* force to begin? I'm asking you to trace your cause/effect concept to the most fundamental cause as you see it.

Maybe another physical force? Or is that too difficult to conceive of as it eliminates the possibility of consciousness as the perpetrator? What caused the consciousness you imagine started all things?

So now you're relying on maybes to defend your Logic?

I'm demonstrating how no matter what "earlier" physical force you come up with to explain the current physical force, you then have to explain that next physical force with an even earlier force.

You have rejected something which can be its own cause and effect. You have placed your foundation on a mechanical one. I'm asking you to answer with more than "maybes" about where your mechanical first cause came from.

Yes Consciousness made the wind blow. Not your portion of consciousness or mine, but the "first move" (which is a misnomer) must be a conscious one, not a mechanical one. A mechanical system will only "begin" with input from the outside. That input needs to be explained as well, and there needs to be a mechanical explanation for NO FORCE becoming FORCE in your rule system.

Is it too difficult for you to conceive of the possibility the universe is conscious too? Or do you actually believe you're smarter than the universe? You can flip from idea to idea and change your mind, but you deny The Universe the potential for the same skill?

I'm asserting that nothing caused the Consciousness. It has always been. You are trapped in linear thinking in the same way a Flatlander is trapped in 2D thinking. As well as trapped by the perception that human consciousness has any bearing on the full scope of consciousness. Similar to people who thought there was only one galaxy before finding out there were an almost infinite variety and even bigger structures beyond galaxies.

Namaste... maybe.

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



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
How does one turn an an adjective into a full blown noun? It’s as simple as adding ‘ness’ to the end of the word. The suffix ‘ness’ transforms an attribute of something into a subject, while allowing the word to remain entirely abstract. Is it safe for us to say these abstract nouns exist?


Other way around, they turned a noun into an adjective.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
I'm trying to get you to explore your logic structure fully and stop turning a blind eye to the holes you don't want to see.

If there was a physical force that caused the universe you walk in to "begin"... what caused *that* force to begin? I'm asking you to trace your cause/effect concept to the most fundamental cause as you see it.

Maybe another physical force? Or is that too difficult to conceive of as it eliminates the possibility of consciousness as the perpetrator? What caused the consciousness you imagine started all things?

So now you're relying on maybes to defend your Logic?

I'm demonstrating how no matter what "earlier" physical force you come up with to explain the current physical force, you then have to explain that next physical force with an even earlier force.

You have rejected something which can be its own cause and effect. You have placed your foundation on a mechanical one. I'm asking you to answer with more than "maybes" about where your mechanical first cause came from.

Yes Consciousness made the wind blow. Not your portion of consciousness or mine, but the "first move" (which is a misnomer) must be a conscious one, not a mechanical one. A mechanical system will only "begin" with input from the outside. That input needs to be explained as well, and there needs to be a mechanical explanation for NO FORCE becoming FORCE in your rule system.

Is it too difficult for you to conceive of the possibility the universe is conscious too? Or do you actually believe you're smarter than the universe? You can flip from idea to idea and change your mind, but you deny The Universe the potential for the same skill?

I'm asserting that nothing caused the Consciousness. It has always been. You are trapped in linear thinking in the same way a Flatlander is trapped in 2D thinking. As well as trapped by the perception that human consciousness has any bearing on the full scope of consciousness. Similar to people who thought there was only one galaxy before finding out there were an almost infinite variety and even bigger structures beyond galaxies.

Namaste... maybe.

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


I didn't once say there was a first cause to anything. Not once. This is your assumption. I could show you thousands of physical causes, but you can't show one that was a consequence of something called consciousness. You can only widen the goalposts ad infinitum. You're thinking is just as linear but less logical than mine.

I'll ask once again. What is the reasoning behind your conclusions? And how did you arrive at them if logic cannot provide a sufficient enough explanation?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
I didn't once say there was a first cause to anything. Not once. This is your assumption. I could show you thousands of physical causes, but you can't show one that was a consequence of something called consciousness. You can only widen the goalposts ad infinitum. You're thinking is just as linear but less logical than mine.

I'll ask once again. What is the reasoning behind your conclusions? And how did you arrive at them if logic cannot provide a sufficient enough explanation?

Thank you for your time.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
I didn't once say there was a first cause to anything. Not once. This is your assumption. I could show you thousands of physical causes, but you can't show one that was a consequence of something called consciousness. You can only widen the goalposts ad infinitum. You're thinking is just as linear but less logical than mine.

I'll ask once again. What is the reasoning behind your conclusions? And how did you arrive at them if logic cannot provide a sufficient enough explanation?

Thank you for your time.


Great discussion. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

When I ask someone to show me ‘blueness,’ he could only ever point to things that are blue, not ‘blueness’ itself. When I ask someone to show me consciousness, he can only ever show me things that are conscious, not consciousness itself. If I ask the same of ‘awareness’ or ‘wakefulness’ I would only be shown things that are aware or wakeful. These abstract nouns only represent nonentities.

Exploring the posibilites of abstract nouns and things completely void of any subject or context leads to such strange paradoxical conclusions such as “Consciousness is conscious of itself.” This is the same as saying “Happiness is happy with itself” or “blueness is as blue as itself.” These of course make little to no logical sense.


It seems that you are saying the idea of consciousness is invalid because it is abstract, yet you are simultaneously arguing that we should embrace logic, which is also abstract. Though that would be a handy koan to use during meditation, it is generally impractical to contradict yourself in an argument.

In your example of "blueness" you say that we can only provide ostensive definitions (examples) of "blueness," and since we cannot point to blueness itself, it's not real. However if this is the criteria for the "reality" of nouns, or language in general, we really have to say that language itself is bogus. Language is an abstraction -- there is nothing inherently concrete about it.

Like it or not, we are linguistic beings, which means that our entire world is framed by abstract concepts that allow us to make sense of our experiences. If you can escape from abstractions and re-enter raw reality, you are likely to become either "enlightened" or psychotic.

If you would like to go deeper into the rabbit hole of language, I recommend reading Jaques Lacan -- DISCLAIMER: a few of his patients committed suicide... but there is a saying, "the psychotic drowns where the mystic swims."

Here is the first video of a series with Zizek talking about the Lacanian concepts of real, symbolic and imaginary. His speech takes time to get used to, but he breaks it down fairly well.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 001ggg100
So, you are going to argue semantics here...? Or is this a post debunking the "life after death" concept....? If it's nothing more then wordplay, then maybe another word is in order. If it's debunking the "life after death" concept, then it's a weak argument...


All we have is our words. These are the limits of our mind.


I don't agree with this, words cannot always explain what you experience, the minds limits are far beyond words, words are the limit of an "audible" expression of a sometimes, unexplainable, subjective experience.
edit on 16-7-2012 by The X because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join