U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:18 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,953,185 times
Reputation: 909

Advertisements

[quote=MysticPhD;13335554]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Now who is being disingenuous. You know full well that the physical means the forms of energy we sense in the "middle world of sensation" as "substance" bounded by the molecular activity of our senses themselves.
How is that disingeneous? The physical world is not just what we can see. We can't actually see atoms. Is that not part of the physical world? Our sensations are not particularly good measurements of reality. I could be disingenous and claim that we don't actually touch anything thanks to the EM force and all, but that is usually your ploy.


Quote:
Abstractions cannot act independently with the universe as abstractions.YOU are not an abstraction but you only exist as what would have to be described as one if your definition of our consciousness is to be believed. How do you reconcile a mere abstraction acting independently with the universe (a "property" reserved for real entities comprised of vibratory energy of some sort.
Self-awareness is a behavior of consciousness.

Quote:
If we are to be specific . . . everything is in the universe is energy . . . including what we cannot directly sense but can only sense the "effects" of indirectly and infer their existence . . . such as our consciousness, dark matter and dark energy. All we can "measure" of our consciousness are the individual baryonic inputs . . . not the composite form of energy I am interacting with in this forum . . . your Self. Ergo . . . it must be of the more common non-baryonic form comprising the bulk of the universe. You are aware that the baryonic content of the universe represents only 4+% and non-baryonic dark matter and energy comprise the remaining 95+%? So . . . don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to write off as "supernatural" the non-baryonic 95+% ?
Physics pertains to the physical world. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Anti-matter, (and should there be antienergy) all fall into this, assuming Dark matter and energy and exist.
They interact with the physical world. I.E., part of the physical world. You're right that my ad-hoc definition did not include various other energies and matter aside from the "positive" energy and matter that we can readily study. Even still, dark matter is simply a place holder for something we don't quite understand just yet, specifically that something seems to be holding our systems together, and that most of the gravity in our universe isn't caused by regular matter.

A place holder for something we don't understand isn't a valid argument for the existence of the consciousness. Self-awareness is a result of consciousness, not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2010, 06:14 PM
 
37,546 posts, read 25,261,889 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
How is that disingeneous? The physical world is not just what we can see. We can't actually see atoms. Is that not part of the physical world? Our sensations are not particularly good measurements of reality. I could be disingenous and claim that we don't actually touch anything thanks to the EM force and all, but that is usually your ploy.
It is disingenuous because you were trying to undermine a perfectly sensible phrase familiar to the common man and undermine it with more specific knowledge known to specialists. We converse at one level of understanding at a time and do not mix the two indiscriminately to pretend we made a point that is pointless in the context of the discussion.
Quote:
Self-awareness is a behavior of consciousness.
YOU are a behavior??? Fascinating. Ah the lengths we will go to avoid acknowledging even the most obvious of realities . . . our very Self!!! . . . in defense of materialism. Epic fail!
Quote:
Physics pertains to the physical world. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Anti-matter, (and should there be antienergy) all fall into this, assuming Dark matter and energy and exist.
They interact with the physical world. I.E., part of the physical world. You're right that my ad-hoc definition did not include various other energies and matter aside from the "positive" energy and matter that we can readily study. Even still, dark matter is simply a place holder for something we don't quite understand just yet, specifically that something seems to be holding our systems together, and that most of the gravity in our universe isn't caused by regular matter.
Ah . . . honesty at last. Inconvenient though isn't it? That something we don't yet understand comprises over 95% of the universe . . . yet you would presume to place anything not in the less than 5% into the "supernatural" category. Seems like an upside down attribution at the very least.
Quote:
A place holder for something we don't understand isn't a valid argument for the existence of the consciousness. Self-awareness is a result of consciousness, not the other way around.
Consciousness needs no arguments for its existence or we could not be carrying on this discourse. Self-awareness requires self-referential properties. From what to what does this self-referencing take place if it is comprised merely of individual sequential activity in the physical brain only?BTW . . . your euphemisms . . . behavior, function, etc will NOT suffice for this question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 09:20 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,953,185 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Consciousness needs no arguments for its existence or we could not be carrying on this discourse.


Consciousness is just the nutshell we use to explain our thoughts, emotions, and memories. We've gone over this. When the tree falls in the woods, it makes a sound. However, if humans didn't exist, "sound" wouldn't exist, for sound is a nutshell of what happens when our brain interprets the movement of air. Consciousness, including self-awareness, is just our interpretation of our own self. Consciousness is defined only by humans on Earth. I'm not going to repeat myself.

You don't accept this definition of consciousness just as you don't accept the definition of nature. I done arguing semantics with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 11:47 PM
 
37,546 posts, read 25,261,889 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post


Consciousness is just the nutshell we use to explain our thoughts, emotions, and memories. We've gone over this. When the tree falls in the woods, it makes a sound. However, if humans didn't exist, "sound" wouldn't exist, for sound is a nutshell of what happens when our brain interprets the movement of air. Consciousness, including self-awareness, is just our interpretation of our own self. Consciousness is defined only by humans on Earth. I'm not going to repeat myself.
You haven't got a clue what consciousness is . . . you don't even think you exist. A behavior??? You don't even realize how absurd your use of the pronoun "our" is in your supposed explanation. Who or what the hell is the "our" that is doing the interpretation of "our" own self. You really need to learn how to think if you expect to understand your Self. Clearly you do not. Repeating yourself would simply be repeating utter nonsense.
Quote:
You don't accept this definition of consciousness just as you don't accept the definition of nature. I done arguing semantics with you.
This is no definition of consciousness it is meaningless gibberish words strung together without any understanding of the phenomenon you are trying to explain. You were done long before you ever started this debate. Spend some time asking yourself who the "our" is that is interpreting "our" self if NOT the Self you claim is just an interpretation. That should occupy the time you don't spend fruitlessly trying to debate with me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 10:57 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,953,185 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You haven't got a clue what consciousness is . . . you don't even think you exist.
I never claimed I don't exist. My self-awarness is the result of my consciousness, a series of processes of the brain. You're arguing otherwise, despite no hard evidence to support that. There is a wall of psychology and neuroscience textsbooks behind me giving a clear idea of awareness. Mystic, I know what I'm talking about. Physical existence of my body is separate from the abstraction of consciousness. "Me" is just a series of brain processes. Granted, it is a very complex process, but it isn't something ethereal or beyond a natural and physical phenomenon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 01:50 PM
 
37,546 posts, read 25,261,889 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
I never claimed I don't exist. My self-awarness is the result of my consciousness, a series of processes of the brain.
You still don't get it. You use the possessive pronoun "my" to talk about your self-awareness . . . which is supposedly ONLY a behavior or characteristic OF your Self . . . which is ONLY a behavior of . . . ??? Do you even try to interpret the things you say instead of taking certain modes of speech for granted?
Quote:
You're arguing otherwise, despite no hard evidence to support that. There is a wall of psychology and neuroscience textsbooks behind me giving a clear idea of awareness. Mystic, I know what I'm talking about. Physical existence of my body is separate from the abstraction of consciousness. "Me" is just a series of brain processes. Granted, it is a very complex process, but it isn't something ethereal or beyond a natural and physical phenomenon.
There is no way anything that can independently interact with the universe in identifiable ways is a mere "abstraction" or illusion." It Must consist of some energic form to do so. I am NOT conversing with your body or any individual brain activity of same. I am conversing with YOU. It is time you began to give the source of those pronouns some serious intellectual reflection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:05 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,953,185 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is no way anything that can independently interact with the universe in identifiable ways is a mere "abstraction" or illusion." It Must consist of some energic form to do so. I am NOT conversing with your body or any individual brain activity of same. I am conversing with YOU. It is time you began to give the source of those pronouns some serious intellectual reflection.
You're not making sense and you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:27 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,077,722 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
You're not making sense and you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying.
This is becoming far too inane, redundant and just plain stupid for anyone other than the terminally bored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:39 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,953,185 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
This is becoming far too inane, redundant and just plain stupid for anyone other than the terminally bored.
Agreed. I'm also avoiding reading a certain novel by any means necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:51 PM
 
37,546 posts, read 25,261,889 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
You're not making sense and you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying.
Understanding what you are saying is NOT the problem . . . it is getting you to understand the self-referential conundrum in your use of pronouns to mask your LACK of understanding why the Self cannot be an abstraction. It exists at the same LEVEL as any other abstraction (like a melody) . . . but it ACTS in real interactions (supposedly as an abstraction or illusion) . . . BUT that cannot be!! Abstractions and illusions (like melody) cannot do any such thing. I will let our posts speak for our respective stupidity or intelligence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top