Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:21 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
#91
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 18, 2016 at 10:45 pm)fdesilva Wrote: The events making the tree in your experience. There is a tree out side your body. Light from that tree creates events in your eyes and subsequently from your eyes via nerves in your brain. Now these last set of events is the tree you see. You see a representation of the real tree out there never the real tree itself.

If you want people to really understand representative realism, you need to clean up your "the"s and "your"s.  When you say "there is a tree outside your body" they think, "that's right - the green tree I see."  And when you say "your eyes" and "your brain," they automatically assume you mean what they experience as their eyes and the brains the believe to be in what they experience as their heads.  Most people -who claim to believe in the "scientific" sense story - actually believe there is light going into what they experience as their eyes, and that their minds happen in what they experience as their heads.  This is why, although representative realism is the only sense story that even sort of works with materialism (it doesn't really work at all), virtually no one actually understands it, and when they do, they don't really believe it.  This is often the point when you start hearing things like, "Oh, that's just semantics."  I wish science books/teachers would stop telling kids stuff like, "Everything you see is made of atoms" and "Your mind happens in your head."  Unfortunately, they don't teach science teachers about representative realism.  And so, science teachers, like everyone else, actually believe there is light "going through the space (they experience) around them" and that they see "because light goes into (what they experience as) their eyes," and "everything they (experience) seeing is made of atoms."  Of course, one of the many problems with the "scientific" sense story is that there is no rational way to go from what is believed to be a material brain in a material world to experience of any kind. 

(Then there's another problem that science books (in the "How We See" chapter) never tell kids - "Oh, by the way - what you, and your science teachers call "the material world" is not a material world at all.  You find or locate the material world relative to what you learn to call "the material world."  So where is "the material world"?  Well, it's kind of like, well, heaven.  We just have to try and imagine that it's really. . . well . . . somewhere.)

(Another interesting thought: even though it's an undeniable conclusion we have to reach from the "scientific" sense story, there is no time when the Guilded Halls of Science told us that "this" was no longer the material world.  And why?  Because they don't REALLY believe their sense story enough to actually teach it.)
Reply
#92
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(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.
Reply
#93
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 24, 2016 at 6:20 am)Mathilda Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 2:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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 is in pages of non-relevant stuff, we could have destroyed it much earlier.

Thank you Mathilda ! Special relativity is a red herring. He is saying his brain can not physically function as a brain. A plea for help ?
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
#94
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 24, 2016 at 6:27 am)chimp3 Wrote: A plea for help ?

It's special pleading by stating that the brain alone amongst naturally occurring complex systems must be coordinated simultaneously.
Reply
#95
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 16, 2016 at 8:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why is this page more than 2 posts long?

Post 1: a bunch of drivel
Post 2: "Hey, that's a bunch of drivel!"

/thread
^^^^
Post 3


Post 4 <<<<<<<
Reply
#96
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 18, 2016 at 9:23 pm)fdesilva Wrote:
(September 16, 2016 at 4:52 pm)Jesster Wrote: No, the reflected light triggers a set of events in your brain after it meets your eyes.

Yes the reflected light triggers a set of events in the brain via eyes etc.

Now these events at any given instant are responsible for the experience of seeing the tree.

This experience of seeing  consist of 2 components at every instant
1. "U" The Tree
2. "I" the thing looking at it.

If "I" does not exist then there can be no experience.

For anything to exist it must exist at every instant.

Thus for "I" to exist at all it must exist at every instant.

If "I" exist in an instant then it will essentially be making a connection with the multitude of events making "U" at that instant.

Alternatively if you think its seeing the tree one event at a time, it will never see a whole tree as it can never know more than a single event.


Continuity is an artificial product of our brains, but so what, it works so far. What's the problem?
Reply
#97
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 18, 2016 at 9:32 pm)fdesilva Wrote:
(September 16, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: False. Same thing conceptualized differently. The experience is the experiencer; the internal observation is the internal observer.



What do you say false? This is presented as an axiom. When you look at a tree you do not feel to be one thing with the tree?
I would think not. Despite the fact that the events making the tree are in your brain you do not feel to be one and the same thing as the tree.

Right, because mere observation doesn't equal transmutation, except in a very, very limited way. Observation can be defined as an exchange of energy, I suppose.



Don't fault me for trying to speak his language.
Reply
#98
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
Do we see reality as it is, or do we see reality as we need it to be?





When we look at a naked man or woman (depending), we become aroused.  We see patches of light or dark, and a certain arrangement of patches signals the brain that a fuckable object is in view.  We even mistake ordinary objects for fuckable objects if they display the same pattern of light and dark.  We see an image that is loaded with sexual significance.  This is more than seeing reality, we're constructing the meaning of those patterns of light and dark in our brain.  We don't necessarily see the patterns of light and dark as what they are, but as we reconstruct them to be.  In the case of the image below, there is the tendency to see the subject as a woman from the perspective of between her legs.  Before we notice the illusion, we may even become aroused by it.  So are we aroused by a representation of reality, or by what our brain constructs the reality to be based on our perceptual signals?  If we concentrate on the image, we may even see it 'flip' like those illusions of the lamp that is also two faces.  One moment it's a lamp, the next moment it's the legs and crotch of a woman.  It literally is reconstructed differently, depending on which side of the flip we are currently seeing.

[Image: 175831910.jpg]

An illusion for the male body.



Faces/vase illusion.

[Image: Facevase.jpg]
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#99
RE: Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness
(September 24, 2016 at 9:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

 Time 15:50 - “We used to think the earth was flat – because it’s looks that way.  Then we thought the earth was the un-moving center of reality, because it looks that way.  We were wrong.  We had misinterpreted our perceptions.  Now we believe that space-time and objects are the nature of reality as it is.  The theory of evolution is telling us that once again we’re wrong.  We’re misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experience.  There’s something that exists when you don’t look, but it’s not spacetime and physical objects.” 

I was hoping to find another non-materialist on this forum – and I did!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Good read on consciousness Apollo 41 2407 January 12, 2021 at 4:04 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How could we trust our consciousness ?! zainab 45 4462 December 30, 2018 at 9:08 am
Last Post: polymath257
  Consciousness Trilemma Neo-Scholastic 208 54891 June 7, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis Won2blv 83 13544 February 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  My thoughts on the Hard problem of consciousness Won2blv 36 5451 February 15, 2017 at 7:27 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  A hypothesis about consciousness Won2blv 12 3898 February 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Last Post: Won2blv
  Consciousness is simply an illusion emergent of a Boltzmann brain configuration.... maestroanth 36 5390 April 10, 2016 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  On naturalism and consciousness FallentoReason 291 43639 September 15, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Last Post: dissily mordentroge
  Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"? Mudhammam 253 40821 June 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Can Consciousness Best Be Explained by God's Existence? Rayaan 80 14828 March 31, 2014 at 6:15 pm
Last Post: Rayaan



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)