quite to the contrary Darwinning, I do not believe truth and reality are constructed from ideas, I believe they are objective things which exist apart from the ideas we have of them. When I stated, "Apart from this idea the rock can not exist" I made a topygraphical and syntactical error. I meant to state that apart from heat, pressure, etc that the rock could not exist. I bleieve that heat et. al. exist apart from our ideas of what they are.
If consciousness actually is an emergent function of complex systems, my argument still holds water I think. My argument is based on what people believe to be true, it is not based on what is true in reality.
If one only believes that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems, i believe the argument still holds up. A belief that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems denotes that one believes consciousness is not a force inherent to the universe, but simply a result of other forces which are inherent to the universe. As such one could not logically believe consciousness exists apart from those property's of the universe which are true, and it could not exist apart from those ideas which we associate with consciousness. Such a belief would be a belief that consciousness is not "real" beyond that it is a term for the interaction of various substances. One could not believe that consciousness itself was not real while at the same time believing anything humans have observed through the use of their senses (which is everything) is somehow real. That would be the equivalent of stating that, "the things I perceive with my senses are real, but my perceptions and senses are not". The first statement just doesn't logically follow from the second; if you can't be confident in your perceptions, you can not be confident in the things you perceive. To do so would require a giant leap of faith.
Yes epinethean I posit that you can not have knowledge of something which is not true. You can conject, opine, speculate, and hold beliefs about what is true without those speculations being actually true, but to have actual knowledge of something it necessarily MUST be true.
Perhaps: I call myself a theist because that is the label I am familar with. I have not claimed that God is a person, in fact the two terms seem contrary to me. The laws of the universe created the universe, God is those laws, hence God created the universe (my belief). Whether or not God "cares" about individuals or their fate is whole different issue. I believe that God does, but have not meditated on that subject so I will not make the claim that my belief is accurate, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to do so.
If consciousness actually is an emergent function of complex systems, my argument still holds water I think. My argument is based on what people believe to be true, it is not based on what is true in reality.
If one only believes that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems, i believe the argument still holds up. A belief that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems denotes that one believes consciousness is not a force inherent to the universe, but simply a result of other forces which are inherent to the universe. As such one could not logically believe consciousness exists apart from those property's of the universe which are true, and it could not exist apart from those ideas which we associate with consciousness. Such a belief would be a belief that consciousness is not "real" beyond that it is a term for the interaction of various substances. One could not believe that consciousness itself was not real while at the same time believing anything humans have observed through the use of their senses (which is everything) is somehow real. That would be the equivalent of stating that, "the things I perceive with my senses are real, but my perceptions and senses are not". The first statement just doesn't logically follow from the second; if you can't be confident in your perceptions, you can not be confident in the things you perceive. To do so would require a giant leap of faith.
Yes epinethean I posit that you can not have knowledge of something which is not true. You can conject, opine, speculate, and hold beliefs about what is true without those speculations being actually true, but to have actual knowledge of something it necessarily MUST be true.
Perhaps: I call myself a theist because that is the label I am familar with. I have not claimed that God is a person, in fact the two terms seem contrary to me. The laws of the universe created the universe, God is those laws, hence God created the universe (my belief). Whether or not God "cares" about individuals or their fate is whole different issue. I believe that God does, but have not meditated on that subject so I will not make the claim that my belief is accurate, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to do so.
