(October 31, 2015 at 8:06 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 10:34 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Still waiting on evidence of this.  That you haven't seen or touched a person's consciousness is not evidence.

Yes it is yog.  
You can keep on melting in your ignorance on the subject but that will not change the fact that consciousness is an abstract entity.  
The evidence is in the fact that your physical senses can not grasp it.  

How do you know that you cannot grasp it? You don't know this. You just assert it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's all you have is absence of evidence.

(October 31, 2015 at 10:23 am)Cato Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 9:32 am)Little Rik Wrote: Oh, Cato, an intellectual like you that waste his time with a low caste like me.
What a waste Cato.  
But please Cato considering that you just back up the Nutter would you please produce evidence that
the believers are all f...ed up in the head?
Have you got solid evidence that God does not exist therefore the believers are f...ed in the head?
Please Cato help Little Rik to understand.  

All believers have is the baseless assertions of ignorant ancients. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where it is reasonable to expect evidence. We have five senses with which to experience existence and even when we extend the powers of the same with technology, not a single trace of any proposed god can be found. Quite strange for something so powerful that is often said to constantly meddle in our affairs. The reasonable conclusion is 'no god'.
This fact immediately renders all gods described by mythology as non-existent. The best a god-bother could hope for at this point is Spinoza's god, with is simply a relabeling of nature and rather silly or a deist creator god that promptly fucked off after setting things in motion. Not much to discuss with these two characters and again there isn't even evidence for these. Be honest though, these definitions of god are not what most are conjuring up when they prattle on about their personal relationships with deities based on stories in sacred texts.
Belief in god is unjustified. People can continue to believe all they want, it's their prerogative, but until they produce a god it's simply fantasy. The expectation that others share the belief is unrealistic.

Is not your day Cato.  
You are a total disaster.  
First you fail to back up with evidence the Nutter story which you agree with that say that the believers are f...ed in the head and that is dishonesty enough, not happy with that you come up with an other story that there is no evidence to say that God exist without you have first consider all option.
Now suppose that you call a plumber to fix your electrical wiring.
Don't you find obvious that he can not possibly carry on the task?
Your ignorance follow the same system.  
You think that with our physical senses we can understand whether God exist or not.
Sorry Cat you fail badly (once again).  

Little Rik Wrote:[...] but that will not change the fact that consciousness is an abstract entity.  
The evidence is in the fact that your physical senses can not grasp it.

Ummmm the fact is actually consciousness is the one thing we can grasp and know exists 100%.

It's the one thing that cannot be an illusion.

It's the one thing that we must be aware of.

It's the one thing we must sense.

Sam Harris Wrote:It is surely a sign of our intellectual progress that a discussion of consciousness no longer has to begin with a debate about its existence. To say that consciousness may only seem to exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness. Even if I happen to be a brain in a vat at this moment—all my memories are false; all my perceptions are of a world that does not exist—the fact that I am having an experience is indisputable (to me, at least).  This is all that is required for me (or any other conscious being) to fully establish the reality of consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion.

Full article: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...sciousness

(October 31, 2015 at 12:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 8:06 am)Little Rik Wrote: Yes it is yog.  
You can keep on melting in your ignorance on the subject but that will not change the fact that consciousness is an abstract entity.  
The evidence is in the fact that your physical senses can not grasp it.  

How do you know that you cannot grasp it?  You don't know this.  You just assert it.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  That's all you have is absence of evidence.

You follow the same line of stupidity that Cato follow in thinking that our physical senses are able to grasp anything even what is not physical or thinking that because our physical senses are not getting any evidence of the existence of God then God doesn't exist.
It is by using the correct tool that you may be able to solve a problem but i imagine that when your toilet is not flushing you will call an electrician.  
You are not even funny yog.
You need help.  

Little Rik by thinking thoughts can't also be physical as well as mental you commit the equivocation fallacy and fall into dualism.

Please read up on some logical fallacies and then try to avoid making them.

It's equivalent to those pricks who say mental illness isn't real because "It's all in your head".

And back when I was unwell I used to simply reply "Yes, it is in my head. Literally. The brain is as real as anything else."

Equivocating fuckers.

Just because the dictionary in one sense defines "physical" and "mental" as opposites doesn't mean you can pretend the mind cannot simply be the brain.

(November 2, 2015 at 8:20 am)Evie Wrote:

Little Rik Wrote:[...] but that will not change the fact that consciousness is an abstract entity.  
The evidence is in the fact that your physical senses can not grasp it.

Ummmm the fact is actually consciousness is the one thing we can grasp and know exists 100%.

It's the one thing that cannot be an illusion.

It's the one thing that we must be aware of.

It's the one thing we must sense.

Sam Harris Wrote:It is surely a sign of our intellectual progress that a discussion of consciousness no longer has to begin with a debate about its existence. To say that consciousness may only seem to exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness. Even if I happen to be a brain in a vat at this moment—all my memories are false; all my perceptions are of a world that does not exist—the fact that I am having an experience is indisputable (to me, at least).  This is all that is required for me (or any other conscious being) to fully establish the reality of consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion.

Full article: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...sciousness

You got lost Evie.  
I never said that the consciousness does not exist.
I said instead that it is an abstract entity.
For abstract i mean something that can not be perceived with our physical senses.
To be abstract doesn't mean that doesn't exist.
Capisci?  

@ Little Rik And I said it's the one thing out physical senses must sense.

If we truly sense anything we are conscious of it.

And the mind is the brain which is a physical entity.

Naturalism has supernaturalism in a stranglehold and the evidence points to consciousness being monistic not dualistic:

So please provide some evidence that consciousness is "abstract"

Actually don't bother, it's the one thing that cannot be abstract. If we couldn't sense it then it wouldn't be the one thing that we know absolutely must exist

You're really missing my bigger point here, we know consciousness must exist because we can sense it and it therefore cannot merely be abstract

All entities found to exist have been physical and not abstract, why would consciousness be an exception and how possibly could it be? What's abstract about it being the one detectable and knowable thing?

You can't really get anything more concrete than the most knowable thing in the universe now can you?

(November 2, 2015 at 8:39 am)Evie Wrote: @ Little Rik And I said it's the one thing out physical senses must sense.
If we truly sense anything we are conscious of it.
And the mind is the brain which is a physical entity.
Naturalism has supernaturalism in a stranglehold and the evidence points to consciousness being monistic not dualistic:
So please provide some evidence that consciousness is "abstract"
Actually don't bother, it's the one thing that cannot be abstract. If we couldn't sense it then it wouldn't be the one thing that we know absolutely must exist
You're really missing my bigger point here, we know consciousness must exist because we can sense it and it therefore cannot merely be abstract
All entities found to exist have been physical and not abstract, why would consciousness be an exception and how possibly could it be? What's abstract about it being the one detectable and knowable thing?
You can't really get anything more concrete than the most knowable thing in the universe now can you?

I just was 100% correct in saying that you got lost.
You say.........we know consciousness must exist [i]because we can sense it...............
You see, you say that you can sense but how do you sense it?
Are your physical senses able to grasp the presence of the consciousness or something else?
You give no evidence that your physical senses are able to grasp the presence of the consciousness and yet you state that that is the case when you say that.......All entities found to exist have been physical and not abstract........
How do you know that the consciousness need to be felt by our physical entity?
What about if the consciousness does not need to be felt by anything as you are the consciousness?
Think about.  

Oh, by the way Evie.
You struck one more dogma in saying that the mind is the brain.
It is like to say that the driver is the car.  

(November 2, 2015 at 8:35 am)Little Rik Wrote: [...]I never said that the consciousness does not exist.
I said instead that it is an abstract entity.
For abstract i mean something that can not be perceived with our physical senses.[...]

Yeah... No - that's not what "abstract" means.    Just another thing you're wrong about.

Quote:abstract
adjective

ˈabstrakt/

1. 1.
   existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
   "abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
   synonyms:
   theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical,philosophical, academic; More
   
   
   
2. 2.
   relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colours, and textures.
   "abstract pictures"
   synonyms:
   non-representational, non-realistic, non-pictorial, symbolic,impressionistic
   "abstract art"
   

So, are you trying to say, that consciousness is only a thought? Well - then how can a thought survive without a brain? Do you have a proof of thoughts or ideas, flying around by themselves? You don't? Oh, dear... It seems like you contradicted yourself again and proved that death of the brain is the end of consciousness.   

 Or do you mean that consciousness is a form of art?
 

Maybe you should stop using words you don't understand?