RATIONAL AKD
a collection of information in the form of thoughts, which make up a sense of reason and self awareness. those would be bare minimum qualities of mind.
My question was asking you to define the immaterial, seeing as thats what you believe mind is.
i don't see how internal awareness entails external awareness. to know you are conscious, all you need is the ability to think... i don't see how external awareness is required for thought. you don't need to learn to think. and if you are self aware, why wouldn't you be conscious?
I know you don't. Its a point of departure in our conversation. You contest that only internal awareness is required, I would say it is implausible given every example of consciousness has access to external awareness through sensory organs. Removal of those sensory organs, impairs awareness and consciousness. As a thought experiment what would happen if someone is born, lives and dies without any sensory input at all for their existence. I am not sure we can imagine that. But you are effectively proposing the true nature of reality is just that with a mind having consciousness but no (real) sensory input. Conciousness, concious only of itelf. I find that deeply implausible, and you do not.
RATIONAL AKD
the difference is the structure of the world is not determined by subjectivity of every mind, thus different for everyone. it has a consistent structure determined by this one 'mind A' and thus 'is' whatever mind A determines it to be. so if he determines the universe to appear a certain way, it is not a deception... it's a construction. that's like saying creating a video game world is a deception...
No its like video game creators who control your entire existence forcing you to live your life (whether you like it or not) in a video game of their creation, where they make the rules and where you have no say. Oh and then the really creepy bit they are doing it for our own good....You may think that is reasonable behaviour, I would say it is capricious - toying with humanity for personal amusement.
RATIONAL AKD
a defense is not something you necessarily know or can prove... it's a plausible explanation that defends a proposition from criticism. can you show my defense is not plausible?
why do you get to determine that? I don't see why this mind has to observe every particle phenomenon... why have you made that determination?
For the same reason you get to make a defence like you have done. Is it not plausible that a conscious being with omniscience and omnipresence would not only be capable of observing everything and would also be compelled to do so? It seems plausible to me. Why is a creator only interested in what we do? If they are omnipresent, they are literally everywhere, implying in every quantum sytstem. At the end of the day it isn't my problem. Theists have defined it in such a way, I am merely pointing out the implications.
a collection of information in the form of thoughts, which make up a sense of reason and self awareness. those would be bare minimum qualities of mind.
My question was asking you to define the immaterial, seeing as thats what you believe mind is.
i don't see how internal awareness entails external awareness. to know you are conscious, all you need is the ability to think... i don't see how external awareness is required for thought. you don't need to learn to think. and if you are self aware, why wouldn't you be conscious?
I know you don't. Its a point of departure in our conversation. You contest that only internal awareness is required, I would say it is implausible given every example of consciousness has access to external awareness through sensory organs. Removal of those sensory organs, impairs awareness and consciousness. As a thought experiment what would happen if someone is born, lives and dies without any sensory input at all for their existence. I am not sure we can imagine that. But you are effectively proposing the true nature of reality is just that with a mind having consciousness but no (real) sensory input. Conciousness, concious only of itelf. I find that deeply implausible, and you do not.
RATIONAL AKD
the difference is the structure of the world is not determined by subjectivity of every mind, thus different for everyone. it has a consistent structure determined by this one 'mind A' and thus 'is' whatever mind A determines it to be. so if he determines the universe to appear a certain way, it is not a deception... it's a construction. that's like saying creating a video game world is a deception...
No its like video game creators who control your entire existence forcing you to live your life (whether you like it or not) in a video game of their creation, where they make the rules and where you have no say. Oh and then the really creepy bit they are doing it for our own good....You may think that is reasonable behaviour, I would say it is capricious - toying with humanity for personal amusement.
RATIONAL AKD
a defense is not something you necessarily know or can prove... it's a plausible explanation that defends a proposition from criticism. can you show my defense is not plausible?
why do you get to determine that? I don't see why this mind has to observe every particle phenomenon... why have you made that determination?
For the same reason you get to make a defence like you have done. Is it not plausible that a conscious being with omniscience and omnipresence would not only be capable of observing everything and would also be compelled to do so? It seems plausible to me. Why is a creator only interested in what we do? If they are omnipresent, they are literally everywhere, implying in every quantum sytstem. At the end of the day it isn't my problem. Theists have defined it in such a way, I am merely pointing out the implications.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
