Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 6727/7006
(26-Sep-2011 at 03:58)


Quote:
If you personally arn't consciousness of something, it may still exist via another consciousness not your own.
That is a cop out, suggesting that nothing is ever discovered because someone, somewhere, was conscious of it previously. It also fails logically. Planet Earth existed before life. No life = no consciousness, yet the planet existed anyway.

Unless you are going to go all creationist and say that some some almighty entity created everything in the universe, the whole universe must have existed without a single consciousness in it immediately after the Big Bang.


Quote:
Why not?
Apart from being impossible you mean? Show me a single example of any mind, anywhere, ever, creating something out of nothing.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1392/1637
(29-Sep-2011 at 05:46)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
It also fails logically. Planet Earth existed before life. No life = no consciousness, yet the planet existed anyway.
Are yes, you keep saying this, but fail to show how earth existed before consciousness. You are just saying that it did, but that doesn't make it so.

Quote:
Unless you are going to go all creationist and say that some some almighty entity created everything in the universe, the whole universe must have existed without a single consciousness in it immediately after the Big Bang.
I don't quote follow that train of thought, but feel free to elaborate.

Quote:
Apart from being impossible you mean? Show me a single example of any mind, anywhere, ever, creating something out of nothing.
Open your eyes. Everything you see before you was created by the mind.
#42  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6729/7006
(29-Sep-2011 at 08:16)


Quote:
Are yes, you keep saying this, but fail to show how earth existed before consciousness. You are just saying that it did, but that doesn't make it so.
Age of the Earth - 4.54 billion years.
First possible life - 3.8 billion years ago.
First known life - 3.5 billion years ago.
First complex life - 0.6 billion years ago.

The Earth pre-dates life and therefore consciousness by 0.74 billion years, even if we accept that algae is conscious and take the earliest possible date. If we are more realistic and take complex life as conscious, then the earth existed for near enough 4 billion years without anything being conscious of it.


Quote:
I don't quote follow that train of thought, but feel free to elaborate.
For conscious life to exist, it needs a universe to exist in. First came the universe, existing happily with not a conscious being in it. Second came life and consciousness.


Quote:
Open your eyes. Everything you see before you was created by the mind.
Really? Tell me, which mind created the tree growing outside my window? You are confusing awareness with existence.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1394/1637
(30-Sep-2011 at 03:14)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Age of the Earth - 4.54 billion years.
First possible life - 3.8 billion years ago.
First known life - 3.5 billion years ago.
First complex life - 0.6 billion years ago.

The Earth pre-dates life and therefore consciousness by 0.74 billion years, even if we accept that algae is conscious and take the earliest possible date. If we are more realistic and take complex life as conscious, then the earth existed for near enough 4 billion years without anything being conscious of it.

For conscious life to exist, it needs a universe to exist in. First came the universe, existing happily with not a conscious being in it. Second came life and consciousness.
Cool story.

Now show how the universe exists independantly of consciousness.

"Just because!"

Quote:
Really? Tell me, which mind created the tree growing outside my window?
Oh, WHICH mind. Good question, sir. That I don't know.

But it's the principal of the thing that's in dispute, no?
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6730/7006
(30-Sep-2011 at 03:47)


Quote:
"Just because!"
"Just because" logic demands it and science proves it, which is more convincing than brains-in-a-vat epistemological solipsism.


Quote:
Oh, WHICH mind. Good question, sir. That I don't know.
Which defeats your own argument. Well done!

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1395/1637
(03-Oct-2011 at 04:44)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
"Just because" logic demands it and science proves it, which is more convincing than brains-in-a-vat epistemological solipsism.
Oh, it's more convincing is it? Good argument...

Logic and science can't actually prove an objective reality, thankyou very much.

Nice way to not answer the question.

Quote:
Which defeats your own argument. Well done!


It doesn't at all. The question is if consciousness creates reality, not which consciousness.

Let me simplify it for you then, the creative force within consciousness that creates reality is GOD, the supreme consciousness/creativity.
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6738/7006
(03-Oct-2011 at 06:01)


Quote:
Logic and science can't actually prove an objective reality, thankyou very much.
The act of discovery logically demands objective reality. A consciousness existing logically demands the prior existence of an objective reality in which to live. Science repeatedly proves objective reality by, for example, taking photographs of stars that nobody was aware of until the photograph was developed. Or by proving that the universe existed before any consciousness was around to be aware of it.


Quote:
It doesn't at all. The question is if consciousness creates reality, not which consciousness.
Yes it does. Twice. Once because your argument says that things only exist if something is aware of them, which means that any individual consciousness can exist only if other consciousnesses are aware of it, which in turn means that any existence depends on the prior existence of another. In other words, infinite regression that makes it impossible for the first consciousness to exist.

Twice because once you introduce other consciousnesses, you are sunk, as Bishop Barclay proved. The only way for another consciousness to exist is through objective reality, independent of whether you are aware of them or not. If not, then they are just figments of my imagination (as you say all of 'reality' is) and cannot be aware of anything.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1396/1637
(04-Oct-2011 at 02:54)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
The act of discovery logically demands objective reality.
Not if discovery is an illusion built on misconcieving the universe as an objective thing.

Quote:
Science repeatedly proves objective reality by, for example, taking photographs of stars that nobody was aware of until the photograph was developed.
Again with the misconception of what reality is. New material does not prove an objective universe, only that we are conscious of new material.

Quote:
Or by proving that the universe existed before any consciousness was around to be aware of it.
Oh really? Please go ahead and prove this.

Quote:
Yes it does. Twice. Once because your argument says that things only exist if something is aware of them, which means that any individual consciousness can exist only if other consciousnesses are aware of it, which in turn means that any existence depends on the prior existence of another. In other words, infinite regression that makes it impossible for the first consciousness to exist.
Yes, finally, something with substance.

Well, the old ontological problem is that eventually, cause and effect brake down. You can only regress so far until things appear to magically pop in and out of existance.

To solve this, I can, with little effort, attribute the break down of cause and effect with free will and the ultimately creative nature of consciousness.

To the mythical 'first consciousness', there isn't one. If reality and consciousness are intertwined, as I believe they are, then the beginning of one must sow the beginning of another.

Quote:
The only way for another consciousness to exist is through objective reality
Quote:
A consciousness existing logically demands the prior existence of an objective reality
There is a difference between what I am suggesting in conscious-reality and the notion of 'objective' reality. Conscious-reality is the idea that consciousness and reality indistinguishable, but objective reality is the notion that there exists something outside of consciousness.

So no, under conscious-reality, multiple consciousness' do not necessitate the existance of objective reality, only multiple realities. This may be hard to get our head around, but think of examples in quantum physics.

The closest thing to 'objective' reality is a kind of collective consensus on what we recognise as mutually accesable and/or useful in thinking about in a certain way. Such conventions have social beginnings, and no basis in the actual fabric of conscious-reality.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 04-Oct-2011 at 02:56.
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6742/7006
(04-Oct-2011 at 03:52)


Quote:
Not if discovery is an illusion built on misconcieving the universe as an objective thing.
Paraphrase: "Real isn't real if it is not real". You are using the conclusion as a premise. Lousy logic...


Quote:
New material does not prove an objective universe, only that we are conscious of new material.
Leaving aside the gaping logical hole in your argument, that the new material has to exist first before we become conscious of it, a camera has no consciousness yet can still photograph those objects outside consciousness that you insist cannot exist.


Quote:
Oh really? Please go ahead and prove this.
I leave proving it to the scientists, who have done the job convincingly as I have already shown. How about you proving that it is all just a dream?


Quote:
To solve this, I can, with little effort, attribute the break down of cause and effect with free will and the ultimately creative nature of consciousness.
A word of advice. When the only way to make your argument stand up is to claim that cause and effect break down, it is actually your argument that has broken down. There is no starting date for cause and effect.


Quote:
If reality and consciousness are intertwined, as I believe they are, then the beginning of one must sow the beginning of another.
... and on top of nonsense about cause and effect breaking down, you come out with this - that the first consciousness could somehow magically exist as an objective reality but nothing else ever can?

It doesn't work like that. If your first consciousness could exist without any consciousness being aware of it, so can anything else. If nothing else can, then neither can your first consciousness and your argument collapses.


Quote:
So no, under conscious-reality, multiple consciousness' do not necessitate the existance of objective reality, only multiple realities. This may be hard to get our head around, but think of examples in quantum physics.
You are contradicting yourself. When I pointed out that the act of discovery demands objective reality because things have to exist outside my awareness to be available to be discovered, you said:-

"If you personally arn't consciousness of something, it may still exist via another consciousness not your own."

For that to work, that consciousness that is not my own must exist as an objective reality. It cannot be in 'another reality' because you say it accounts for discovery in *my* reality.

As you said:-

"Oh, WHICH mind. Good question, sir. That I don't know."

If I don't know which consciousness it is, then as you agree it must be existing, objectively, outside my awareness. The alternative, that they only exist if I am aware of them, excludes them from accounting for the act of discovery.

If other consciousnesses exist, they can do so only as objective reality independent of whether a consciousness is aware of them or not. If they don't, the act of discovery proves objective reality. You can't have it both ways.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1397/1637
(04-Oct-2011 at 04:37)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Paraphrase: "Real isn't real if it is not real". You are using the conclusion as a premise. Lousy logic...
No I'm not. I'm telling you that your idea is wrong, false, unprovable and actually, in contrast, an illusion.

Quote:
Leaving aside the gaping logical hole in your argument, that the new material has to exist first before we become conscious of it,
Heresay.

Quote:
a camera has no consciousness yet can still photograph those objects outside consciousness that you insist cannot exist.
Yes but this whole experience/process is an extention of consciousness.

Where does the camera take the pictice outside of consciousness?

It doesn't. It can't. And you can't show that it does.

Quote:
I leave proving it to the scientists,
'Course you do.

Quote:
How about you proving that it is all just a dream?
Easily. I actually only have to show that you are conscious. The rest falls into place after that.

The problem I have is that the consensus tapes on this idea of objectivity, which is strictly, ultimately false.

Quote:
A word of advice.
Oh, because you are so smart, right?

Quote:
When the only way to make your argument stand up is to claim that cause and effect break down,
No, I was making an illustration because you were asking about causality and how that fits in with my view.

If you want to talk more about causality then we can do that, too.

Quote:
There is no starting date for cause and effect.
And you know this because?

Quote:
... and on top of nonsense about cause and effect breaking down, you come out with this - that the first consciousness could somehow magically exist as an objective reality but nothing else ever can?

It doesn't work like that. If your first consciousness could exist without any consciousness being aware of it, so can anything else. If nothing else can, then neither can your first consciousness and your argument collapses.
Huh?

If there was a first consciousness, it would be conscious of itself, and thus produce its own reality.

You are really not even trying to understand me.

The idea of 'first' and 'last' is meaningless if consciousness and reality are the same. It's just BANG and WHOOSH. Where did conscious-reality come from? I'd say that it's eternal - there was no beginning.



Quote:
You are contradicting yourself. When I pointed out that the act of discovery demands objective reality because things have to exist outside my awareness to be available to be discovered, you said:-

"If you personally arn't consciousness of something, it may still exist via another consciousness not your own."

For that to work, that consciousness that is not my own must exist as an objective reality. It cannot be in 'another reality' because you say it accounts for discovery in *my* reality.

As you said:-

"Oh, WHICH mind. Good question, sir. That I don't know."

If I don't know which consciousness it is, then as you agree it must be existing, objectively, outside my awareness. The alternative, that they only exist if I am aware of them, excludes them from accounting for the act of discovery.

If other consciousnesses exist, they can do so only as objective reality independent of whether a consciousness is aware of them or not. If they don't, the act of discovery proves objective reality. You can't have it both ways.
That different creative powers in multiple consciousness/realities can influence one other?

Nope, no contradiction there. Try again.

The closest you get is that because it's not your own conscious-reality, that it is someone elses. But that's not the same as objective.
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6745/7006
(04-Oct-2011 at 05:23)


Quote:
No I'm not. I'm telling you that your idea is wrong, false, unprovable and actually, in contrast, an illusion.
Yes you are. You are expecting me to believe that everything is unreal just because you say so, and every time you are challenged on that use your unproven *conclusion* that it is not reality as the *reason* that it is not real. For example:

"Yes but this whole experience/process is an extention of consciousness."

Why is it an extension of consciousness? Your reason, your premise, is that it is an illusion, which is also your conclusion. When you premise and your conclusion are the same, it is lousy logic.


Quote:
Heresay.
Logic. Explain how anyone can become '...conscious of new material' if that new material doesn't exist first.


Quote:
Where does the camera take the pictice outside of consciousness?
Cameras have no consciousness.


Quote:
Easily. I actually only have to show that you are conscious. The rest falls into place after that.
Again you are using your conclusion as a premise. Whether I am conscious or not is not in dispute, and proving that I am conscious proves only that I am conscious. It does not prove that everything else is an illusion.

What you are presenting is essentially a faith based argument. If you want to be convincing, you need to *prove* that the tree outside my window is created by my consciousness. I am not going to take it on faith.


Quote:
No, I was making an illustration because you were asking about causality and how that fits in with my view.
I pointed out that your position leads to infinite regression. You tried to get out of it by saying:-

"...eventually, cause and effect brake down. You can only regress so far until things appear to magically pop in and out of existence."

If you need cause and effect to break down and things to magically pop into existence to make your argument work, then your argument is wrong.


Quote:
And you know this because?
Because it is logical nonsense to assume that sometimes there is cause and effect, and sometimes - when it gets in the way of your faith-based argument - there isn't.

If you are going to say it has a starting date, show the proof. When was this starting date, for example?


Quote:
If there was a first consciousness, it would be conscious of itself, and thus produce its own reality.
It created itself out of nothing, without needing a consciousness? Fine. So did everything else. A whole universe of objective reality created itself out of nothing too, and that too did not need a consciousness.

You cannot have it both ways. A consciousness magically appearing without being created by another consciousness *is* an objective reality. Either that is impossible which proves that your argument fails on infinite regression, or it is possible and you have just proved that objective reality exists.


Quote:
That different creative powers in multiple consciousness/realities can influence one other?

Nope, no contradiction there. Try again.
Is this other creative power created by me being conscious of it, or is it not?

If it is, it is itself an objective reality. If it is not, it cannot be influencing me, explaining discovery, or creating that tree outside my window.

Big contradiction there. Try again.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#51  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1398/1637
(04-Oct-2011 at 09:37)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Yes you are. You are expecting me to believe that everything is unreal just because you say so, and every time you are challenged on that use your unproven *conclusion* that it is not reality as the *reason* that it is not real. For example:

"Yes but this whole experience/process is an extention of consciousness."

Why is it an extension of consciousness? Your reason, your premise, is that it is an illusion, which is also your conclusion. When you premise and your conclusion are the same, it is lousy logic.
I start by saying that consciousness exists, then say that consciousness is the only thing that exists (and the reality therein), because there is nothing further than can be proven to exist beyond or not directly occuring due to the role of consciousness.

Is this not clear as crystal?

Quote:
Logic. Explain how anyone can become '...conscious of new material' if that new material doesn't exist first.
Because consciousness is creative.

How do I know this? See point above.

Quote:
Cameras have no consciousness.
O.K., but that doesn't change anything.

Quote:
Whether I am conscious or not is not in dispute, and proving that I am conscious proves only that I am conscious. It does not prove that everything else is an illusion.
Being conscious proves that you are unable to distinguish between conscious reality and this theoretical thing called objectivity.

Quote:
What you are presenting is essentially a faith based argument. If you want to be convincing, you need to *prove* that the tree outside my window is created by my consciousness. I am not going to take it on faith.
Actually, I am presenting the opposite. YOU are supposing that there is a tree outside at all. I am simply negating that supposition because it is impossible to establish the existance of something which you are not conscious of.

What we are left with is a pure, minimalist paradign based on the finality of consciousness. It's the complete negation of faith, in fact.

Quote:
I pointed out that your position leads to infinite regression. You tried to get out of it by saying:-

"...eventually, cause and effect brake down. You can only regress so far until things appear to magically pop in and out of existence."

If you need cause and effect to break down and things to magically pop into existence to make your argument work, then your argument is wrong.
I don't need cause and effect to break down. I was simply saying that cause and effect, in physics and ontology and anything on an absolute scale, inevitable breaks down.

Quote:
Because it is logical nonsense to assume that sometimes there is cause and effect, and sometimes - when it gets in the way of your faith-based argument - there isn't.
Cause and effect can and does exist alongside free will, or acausality, or whatever you want to call it. Any philosopher or physicist worth a damn will tell you this, eg. every time you observe an electron it is in a different position; it's the uncertainity principal, it doesn't follow cause and effect. OMG is this wrong? No it's not.

You are hooked up on the idea of cause and effect as absolute powers. They are not.

Quote:
If you are going to say it has a starting date, show the proof. When was this starting date, for example?
You are the one making the claim the cause and effect has a starting date. Answer it.

Quote:
It created itself out of nothing, without needing a consciousness?
Consiousness and reality, or at least the potential for its spontaneous emergence, is eternal. As you may be following, I'm not a strict determinist, because that's actually wrong.

Quote:
Is this other creative power created by me being conscious of it, or is it not?
Inside the paradigm, either conscious sustains reality, else it doesn't exist.

You may have to rephrase this point, I'm not following the implications.
#52  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6746/7006
(04-Oct-2011 at 10:50)


Quote:
I start by saying that consciousness exists,
Yep...


Quote:
then say that consciousness is the only thing that exists (and the reality therein)
... but that is one huge leap of faith.


Quote:
because there is nothing further than can be proven to exist beyond or not directly occuring due to the role of consciousness.
So what? Failure to prove is not proof of failure. That does not falsify the whole universe. You have not proved it doesn't exist.


Quote:
Is this not clear as crystal?
It is clearly logical nonsense.


Quote:
O.K., but that doesn't change anything.
It means the camera cannot have created that new star it photographed.


Quote:
Being conscious proves that you are unable to distinguish between conscious reality and this theoretical thing called objectivity.
It proves nothing of the sort. It proves I exist, and everything else not existing is just your assumption that you neither prove nor reason but expect to be accepted on faith.


Quote:
I am simply negating that supposition because it is impossible to establish the existance of something which you are not conscious of.
I keep asking you to prove it doesn't exist. You are not doing that. Expecting me to believe an idea that you can neither prove nor reason is a faith based argument.


Quote:
I don't need cause and effect to break down.
Then we are back to infinite regression, which proves your argument to be logically wrong.


Quote:
Any philosopher or physicist worth a damn will tell you this, eg. every time you observe an electron it is in a different position; it's the uncertainity principal, it doesn't follow cause and effect.
So what? Every time I observe my wife she is in a different position - how on earth does that prove that cause and effect has broken down? All it proves is that sometimes things move. Even electrons.

How about proving this point instead of expecting me to take it on faith. Give me an example of an effect that has no cause.


Quote:
You are the one making the claim the cause and effect has a starting date.
"To solve this, I can, with little effort, attribute the break down of cause and effect with free will and the ultimately creative nature of consciousness."

That was you, by the way.


Quote:
Consiousness and reality, or at least the potential for its spontaneous emergence, is eternal.
Is this another faith based argument, or do you have some proof that this eternal potential to spontaneously burst into existence exists?

You are evading the point instead of addressing it: if this consciousness can spontaneously emerge into existence, *it does not require a consciousness to create it*, and is itself an example of objective reality.


Quote:
You may have to rephrase this point, I'm not following the implications.
It is a question, not a point, and it is noticeable that you are avoiding it.

The implications are very simple. If these other consciousnesses exist independently of mine, they are objective realities in themselves - they do not require my consciousness, or for me to be aware of them, to exist. This is a second proof (the first is the need for infinite regression) that your position is logically flawed.

If they are not independent actors, that can exist only in my consciousness and if I am aware of them, then they cannot explain the act of discovery or how that tree came to be outside my window before I was ever aware of it. and you argument is shown to be logically flawed again.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1399/1637
(05-Oct-2011 at 04:49)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
So what? Failure to prove is not proof of failure. That does not falsify the whole universe. You have not proved it doesn't exist.
Quote:
It proves nothing of the sort. It proves I exist, and everything else not existing is just your assumption that you neither prove nor reason but expect to be accepted on faith.

The onus is not on me to prove or falsify the universe. That's not a concept I am acknowledging at all. Much like the claim that a teapot orbits the earth, it's not my job to falsify that because I never recognised the idea in the first place.

Quote:
It means the camera cannot have created that new star it photographed.
I never said that the camera created anything, I said only consciousness can.

Quote:
I keep asking you to prove it doesn't exist. You are not doing that. Expecting me to believe an idea that you can neither prove nor reason is a faith based argument.
The only thing I expect of you is to strip back your assumptions about the universe to its most basic elements, i.e. in the beginning, man openned his eyes and became conscious. It's impossible to begin at any other time because this is the first necessary step to comprehending the universe.

You, on the other hand, are trying to say that the universe existed prior to consciousness, but that's impossible to show, therefore I am simply ignoring it and am left with my position about consciousness being the beginning because it's the most basic, first step that can be shown about the universe.

To use a metaphor, the window must exist before you can see what's outside.

Quote:
Then we are back to infinite regression, which proves your argument to be logically wrong.
Clearly it doesn't. Infinite regression is a fantasy.

Quote:
So what? Every time I observe my wife she is in a different position - how on earth does that prove that cause and effect has broken down? All it proves is that sometimes things move. Even electrons.
Stop digging.

Quote:
How about proving this point instead of expecting me to take it on faith. Give me an example of an effect that has no cause.
Quote:
Is this another faith based argument, or do you have some proof that this eternal potential to spontaneously burst into existence exists?
I've given you an example in quantum physics.

Maybe you should read a little about it.

Quote:
"To solve this, I can, with little effort, attribute the break down of cause and effect with free will and the ultimately creative nature of consciousness."

That was you, by the way.
Yes it was. Notice how I never claimed anything about whether cause and effect had a beginning, you did that all by yourself:

"There is no starting date for cause and effect. "

Bold statement. Please show how you know this or retract the statement.

Quote:
You are evading the point instead of addressing it: if this consciousness can spontaneously emerge into existence, *it does not require a consciousness to create it*, and is itself an example of objective reality.
Nothingness constitutes objective reality?

O.K. I am happy with that. All other existance is conscious-reality.

Quote:
It is a question, not a point, and it is noticeable that you are avoiding it.
You've got to be joking. I've made every attempt to answer your questions in full.

Quote:
The implications are very simple. If these other consciousnesses exist independently of mine, they are objective realities in themselves - they do not require my consciousness, or for me to be aware of them, to exist.
Not exactly. Other consciousnesses are not your own, but I'm not sure how that makes them objective?

Quote:
This is a second proof (the first is the need for infinite regression) that your position is logically flawed.
I have mentioned two channels of existance, the causal and the spontaneous. How can you ignore half the picture?

Quote:
If they are not independent actors, that can exist only in my consciousness and if I am aware of them, then they cannot explain the act of discovery or how that tree came to be outside my window before I was ever aware of it. and you argument is shown to be logically flawed again.
Non-independent actors who exist only in your consciousness?

You'll have a good time showing that one.
#54  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1400/1637
(05-Oct-2011 at 05:04)
I understand you loathe youtube, but for a basic overview of the implications of quantum mechanics, this video is pretty informative (if you are interested):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPvJW1aC0
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1401/1637
(05-Oct-2011 at 05:16)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgVKvkMbR3A
#56  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1402/1637
(05-Oct-2011 at 05:21)
Sorry, the first video was meant to link here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwUkyQ3YgkU
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6747/7006
(05-Oct-2011 at 09:44)


Quote:
The onus is not on me to prove or falsify the universe.
I see... you are starting out from the conclusion again: "Lets start out by assuming the universe doesn't exist."

Lousy logic...


Quote:
I never said that the camera created anything, I said only consciousness can.
In which case the camera can't have created that new star it photographed, in which the case the star must exist independently of anyone being conscious of it.


Quote:
Infinite regression is a fantasy.
Which is precisely why any argument that requires it, as yours does, is also a fantasy.


Quote:
in the beginning, man openned his eyes and became conscious. It's impossible to begin at any other time because this is the first necessary step to comprehending the universe.
Which requires the universe to exist before man opened his eyes and became conscious.

Your mistake is being unable to distinguish comprehending and existing. They are not the same thing - that is just something you are taking on faith. "I am not aware of it, therefore it doesn't exist" is 100% unproven, and you even refuse to try.


Quote:
Notice how I never claimed anything about whether cause and effect had a beginning, you did that all by yourself:
Infinite regression goes backwards. That is why it is called regression. If it is going to cause a breakdown in cause and effect (a second unproven act of faith...) that has to be in the past. Cause and effect are alive and healthy today. Conclusion? It must have a starting date to make your argument work.


Quote:
Please show how you know this or retract the statement.
Show me an effect that has no cause. I asked you this before but got no answer.


Quote:
Nothingness constitutes objective reality?
No. A consciousness or anything else creating itself out of nothing (a third unproven act of faith...) constitutes objective reality.


Quote:
I've given you an example in quantum physics.
You've told me that electrons move, as if that is something unusual and meaningful.


Quote:
Other consciousnesses are not your own, but I'm not sure how that makes them objective?
They do not require me or anybody else to be conscious of them to exist, AKA objective reality.


Quote:
How can you ignore half the picture?
Easily, when 'spontaneous existence' is a completely unproven act of faith - the fourth one in your argument.


Quote:
Non-independent actors who exist only in your consciousness?

You'll have a good time showing that one.
Exactly. So they must be independent actors who exist regardless of my consciousness or anybody else's. AKA objective reality.


Quote:
I understand you loathe youtube, but for a basic overview of the implications of quantum mechanics, this video is pretty informative (if you are interested):
That is because it is full of pseudo-science such as your video, which is not an 'overview of the implications of quantum mechanics' but an exercise in quantum mysticism.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1403/1637
(06-Oct-2011 at 04:00)
Re: Reality and Consciousness

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I see... you are starting out from the conclusion again: "Lets start out by assuming the universe doesn't exist."

Lousy logic...
I do no such thing. I'm waiting for the objective universe to show us it exists. But it has not yet done so.

Quote:
In which case the camera can't have created that new star it photographed, in which the case the star must exist independently of anyone being conscious of it.
I never said anything about a camera creating anything. If I had said anything thing at all regarding creation it would have to do with consciousness.

Quote:
Which is precisely why any argument that requires it, as yours does, is also a fantasy.
Quote:
Which requires the universe to exist before man opened his eyes and became conscious.

Your mistake is being unable to distinguish comprehending and existing. They are not the same thing - that is just something you are taking on faith. "I am not aware of it, therefore it doesn't exist" is 100% unproven, and you even refuse to try.
I'm waiting. Show me that there exists anything outside of what we are aware of.

Quote:
Infinite regression goes backwards. That is why it is called regression. If it is going to cause a breakdown in cause and effect (a second unproven act of faith...) that has to be in the past. Cause and effect are alive and healthy today. Conclusion? It must have a starting date to make your argument work.
Quote:
Show me an effect that has no cause. I asked you this before but got no answer.
So you igore the observation of electons? O.K...

What about the big bang, then? Is that an example of an effect without a cause?

Quote:
No. A consciousness or anything else creating itself out of nothing (a third unproven act of faith...) constitutes objective reality.
But since creation cannot exist outside of consciousness, there is no objective reality. Unless, as I'm waiting, you can show me where reality exists outside of that which we are conscious of?


Quote:
You've told me that electrons move, as if that is something unusual and meaningful.
Quote:
Easily, when 'spontaneous existence' is a completely unproven act of faith - the fourth one in your argument.
Quote:
That is because it is full of pseudo-science such as your video, which is not an 'overview of the implications of quantum mechanics' but an exercise in quantum mysticism.
Wow, so, Micho Kaku, for example, is a pseudo-scientific mystic in your view?

This guy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 06-Oct-2011 at 04:03.
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6750/7006
(06-Oct-2011 at 06:12)


Quote:
I'm waiting for the objective universe to show us it exists. But it has not yet done so.
Quote:
Show me that there exists anything outside of what we are aware of.
It has, but your mind is too closed to accept it.

It has shown itself by being a logical necessity. Necessary for your consciousness to have a place in which to exist. Necessary for discovery to be possible. Necessary for more than one consciousness to exist. It is proven by the earth existing before anything conscious existed on it, and by the entire universe existing before anything conscious lived in it.

Now, where is your proof that the universe doesn't exist? I keep asking for it and you refuse give any, because your argument is faith based.


Quote:
I never said anything about a camera creating anything.
In which case the camera can't have created that new star it photographed, in which the case the star must exist independently of anyone being conscious of it.


Quote:
So you igore the observation of electons? O.K...
I don't ignore electrons. I ignore your assertion that electrons moving proves that cause and effect doesn't exist. I asked you to explain that, and you haven't.


Quote:
What about the big bang, then? Is that an example of an effect without a cause?
It was caused by time.
It was caused by probability.
It is a meaningless question because cause and effect needs a universe in which to operate.

Take your pick.


Quote:
But since creation cannot exist outside of consciousness, there is no objective reality.
That is still a faith based argument in which you are using the conclusion as an argument for itself - the second clause is nothing but a paraphrase of the first!

If you are going to say "... since creation cannot exist outside of consciousness" you first have to prove that, and you haven't.


Quote:
Wow, so, Micho Kaku, for example, is a pseudo-scientific mystic in your view?
No. He is a scientist, which is why he accepts objective reality.

Notice how he doesn't say the universe doesn't really exist. Notice how he doesn't say cause and effect doesn't exist. Notice the contrast with psuedo-science quantum mystics:

Michu Kaku ~ "The universe is a clock, wound up at the beginning of time"
You ~ "The universe doesn't really exist."

Michu Kaku ~ "Everytime we look at an electron, it moves, so there is uncertainty"
You ~ "Everytime time we look at an electron, it moves, so cause and effect don't exist."
Your Quantum Mystic video ~ "Everytime we look at an electron, it moves, so it could be anywhere in the universe"

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
All Your Religion Belong To Me Gus Mackay Religious Discussions 43 30-Aug-2011 07:35
Life Created the Universe, not Vice Versa The Other Sage Respectable General Discussions 65 25-Jun-2009 09:49
Earth Without People advocatus Respectable General Discussions 72 24-Apr-2008 06:00
Virtual Reality: A buddhist perspective Alatar Religious Discussions 0 01-Sep-2004 10:07
Is there a "God"? Unholy Mystery The Lunatic Asylum 316 21-Nov-2001 18:03


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 05:16.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.