RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
September 24, 2016 at 6:20 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2016 at 6:24 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
(September 24, 2016 at 2:26 am)Rhythm Wrote:(September 23, 2016 at 4:06 pm)fdesilva Wrote: While the above argument does not use special relativity (SR), it is a fact (from SR) that simultaneous events cannot have a connection or create anything that has energy. The essential nature of “I” is that it must bring together simultaneous event that make up the “U” or the tree. There is nothing physical that can do that.
Except everything that has a register...like the pc you used to type that absurd claim with. Why do these thread always turn into "nothing physical can do this" or "materialism can;t account for that". Is that the sum total of your support for the statements made? If so, you're just flat out wrong..what else can be said?
Ah, is that what this is all about? It was so obfsucated with stuff about 'axioms' and whatnot I was beginning to think that all he was saying was that our experience of reality is not in itself reality. I was about to become impressed that a Catholic could come up with such a realisation. But no, it was after all as you say.
Why he couldn't have just said that at the beginning rather than ignore every point that we had argued with and drag it out I don't know. Actually I do know. It serves to hide the massive leap of faith in a load of other statements or premises that people can agree with. It's a very old and disingenuous trick that all theists seem to use on these forums. It''s just one sentence but let's look at this vital assumption that he makes in a bit more detail:
(September 23, 2016 at 4:06 pm)fdesilva Wrote: While the above argument does not use special relativity (SR), it is a fact (from SR) that simultaneous events cannot have a connection or create anything that has energy. The essential nature of “I” is that it must bring together simultaneous event that make up the “U” or the tree. There is nothing physical that can do that.
Question: Why do the essential nature of "I" as you call it need to "bring together simultaneous event that make up the “U” or the tree" ? What exactly do you mean by "bring together" ? What is the "essential nature of I" ? You are making an assumption that something is needed when there is no evidence to suggest that there is, and no physical means for it to happen.
Let me take an analogy of the brain interacting with its environment. Imagine a pebble beach. The waves come in and change the contours in the beach by rearranging the pebbles. The pebbles in turn influence what happens to the waves. Why would you look at this scene and recognise that the beach is made up of individual pebbles but assume that each pebble is co-ordinated simultaneously and then think, ah, but they are separated by distance and special relativity means that there is no physical means to do this so they are co-ordinated by something metaphysical?
You haven't stated it, but implicit in your assumption is a top down view point assuming that consciousness needs to be co-ordinated but not something like a beach. There is no reason to suggest that this should be so. A queen bee isn't co-ordinating her hive, or a queen ant co-ordinating her colony. These are classic examples of bottom up processes creating emergent phenomena. Your whole argument falls down because the best explanation for the how the brain functions, including consciousness, is that it is also a bottom up self organised process.
If you had got to the crux of your argument in your OP rather than try to hide it in pages of non-relevant stuff, we could have destroyed it much earlier.
