You Are God

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Londoner
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: You Are God

Post by Londoner » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:00 pm

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:11 am

Nope, not a troll. Spend enough time on philosophy forums and you'll find a fair number of solipsists and "all is illusion"-ists.
Are we lumping everyone who thinks that reality as we know it is fundamentally mental i.e 'Idealists' into that category?

If so, we would expect nearly everyone to be in that group, because it is certainly the majority view of philosophers.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: You Are God

Post by Greta » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:09 am

Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:00 pm
Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:11 am

Nope, not a troll. Spend enough time on philosophy forums and you'll find a fair number of solipsists and "all is illusion"-ists.
Are we lumping everyone who thinks that reality as we know it is fundamentally mental i.e 'Idealists' into that category?

If so, we would expect nearly everyone to be in that group, because it is certainly the majority view of philosophers.
Yes :) I think the "all is illusion" notion is unfounded, a philosophical failure. The import of senses alone demolishes the notion, eg. losing a leg or a loved one is no illusion - it's raw and basic stuff for energetic beings.

Those who claim that their search for a "self" produced nothing and then extrapolate that everything else is illusory seem quick to assume that that sensation has any depth or reality. What is more likely? That the sensation of "nothing there" is illusory or that all of this is illusory? When you look at the Moon, you are not creating it; rather your eyes are receiving reflected light from an entity that was intimately involved in your own creation and development. How about a little respect or something greater than ourselves! :)

Londoner
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: You Are God

Post by Londoner » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:43 am

Greta wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:09 am

Me: Are we lumping everyone who thinks that reality as we know it is fundamentally mental i.e 'Idealists' into that category?

If so, we would expect nearly everyone to be in that group, because it is certainly the majority view of philosophers.


Yes :) I think the "all is illusion" notion is unfounded, a philosophical failure. The import of senses alone demolishes the notion, eg. losing a leg or a loved one is no illusion - it's raw and basic stuff for energetic beings.
If I lose my leg the 'import of senses' for me will be very different to the 'import of senses' for Greta, who has only observed Londoner lose his leg.

So which of us has the genuine 'import of senses' and which of us has the 'illusion'?

It isn't that 'all is illusion'. It is simply that we experience the world subjectively, so there is no single sensory experience that we can say equates to what is 'real'.
Those who claim that their search for a "self" produced nothing and then extrapolate that everything else is illusory seem quick to assume that that sensation has any depth or reality. What is more likely? That the sensation of "nothing there" is illusory or that all of this is illusory? When you look at the Moon, you are not creating it; rather your eyes are receiving reflected light from an entity that was intimately involved in your own creation and development. How about a little respect or something greater than ourselves! :)
Again, they do not say ' everything else is illusory'. If they said that it would imply that sometimes we can see things other than through our own subjective consciousness, such that we could step back and say; 'This subjective perception matches reality but that one is only an illusion'. But we can't; we are always trapped within our consciousness.

When I look at the Moon, what I see is a function of my eyes and the configuration of my brain. If I had different eyes or brain I would see the Moon differently. If I had no eyes I would not see it at all. So, what I sense as being the appearance of the Moon is about me, not the Moon. Yes, there may be something 'out there' which provides some sort of indirect basis for my perception, but I cannot know it.

You write that the Moon is 'an entity that was intimately involved in your own creation and development.' But that claim does not arise from the senses, it arises from the way you have chosen to understand the universe. It is not an objective claim; for example one could equally say that what is important is at the molecular level, so to single out the Moon as if it was a distinct and significant entity is an error, it is simply an instance of more basic forces.

So what Idealists recognise is that any description we give of 'reality' is always configured by our own consciousness. Their view is strengthened by our inability to come up with an example of anything that contradicts this.

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: You Are God

Post by thought addict » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm

daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:15 am
thought addict wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:55 pm
Your Construct wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:46 pm
I have played computer games for most of my life, my favorite is fantasy role-playing games. I have played single-player games and multi-player games. Then eventually I began seeing physics articles that claimed reality was like a computer simulation. And I thought well ok, I'm actually in a multi-player computer simulation. But then it occurred to me that I might actually be in a single-player computer simulation and that no one, not even the parents that raised me, were real. This one thought completely blew my mind. I was depressed for quite some time.
Hi YC. Have you come across the idea that there could only be one consciousness, but that it is repeatedly and very rapidly visiting each mind in the universe in turn before returning to the first one again? In your computer game analogy (which by the way is a great way to test philosophical concepts), it would be equivalent to a loop in the code that iterates over all of the NPCs in the game, simulating each one in turn for each given moment.

If this concept applies to reality, it is much less depressing because it would mean that other people can also be conscious but that they are just you as you are them, in a sense. They are also still individuals in the sense that they have their own memories, thoughts and personalities. Also no-one would be aware of such a system because all we ever have are the memories of who we are now, at this given instant.
There is no such thing as only one consciousness, unless you are the only one in the world and everyone else died.
the "your construct" bullshit argument has no validity in anything, ask him to post his bs in any skepticforum, he will not. I didn't even read his solipsistic bullshit, because he is clearly trying to brainwash people here, but his efforts go unnoticed.
Daramantus you apparently only have a superficial understanding of what I wrote, unless you'd care to explain to me why there cannot be only one consciousness? What makes you so sure that when you look across a room at someone else, that a fraction of a second ago you didn't used to be them? You make a bold claim "There is no such thing as only one consciousness" but then you mention skeptics. You give no evidence to support your claim and the skeptic would say it is a worthless claim. I say it cannot be proved.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: You Are God

Post by Greta » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am

Londoner wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:43 am
It isn't that 'all is illusion'. It is simply that we experience the world subjectively, so there is no single sensory experience that we can say equates to what is 'real'.
That is sensible. "All is illusion" is not. I'm not tuning into the poetry of the metaphor because the semantic of "illusion" seems rather desultory towards the extraordinary to me.

I also take shared perceptions seriously, not just humans but those we share with other animals (inferred by their behaviour and responses). Of course, the perceptions will be limited to chordates, or even Earthlings for that matter, so it's not "objective". For mine Kant and Einstein cover the issue nicely - yes, our sensory filters (fortunately) don't allow us to perceive quite the actual reality of anything and, of what we perceive, it is all ultimately relative.
Londoner wrote:You write that the Moon is 'an entity that was intimately involved in your own creation and development.' But that claim does not arise from the senses, it arises from the way you have chosen to understand the universe. It is not an objective claim; for example one could equally say that what is important is at the molecular level, so to single out the Moon as if it was a distinct and significant entity is an error, it is simply an instance of more basic forces.

So what Idealists recognise is that any description we give of 'reality' is always configured by our own consciousness. Their view is strengthened by our inability to come up with an example of anything that contradicts this.
What of humanity's hard-won body of knowledge - so many geniuses working so hard, some losing their lives, all the testing and re-testing. Is all this to disappear in a philosophical postmodern puff of uncertainty, subjective views like any other? Neither of us want to see that, but there's clearly a tendency in the public conversation towards the kind of postmodernism that values a neophyte's intuition on a subject alongside the views of a genius with a lifetime of experience in the field. The problem is quite nicely encapsulated by the Trump administration's recent list of banned terms.

So I see my interpretation of the Moon is less of a broad choice than a choice to accept the logic, knowing that which I do thanks to the efforts of many minds far more functional than mine, as above. In short, while everything is relative, some things are more relative than others (apologies Orwell).

Londoner
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: You Are God

Post by Londoner » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:11 pm

Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am

What of humanity's hard-won body of knowledge - so many geniuses working so hard, some losing their lives, all the testing and re-testing. Is all this to disappear in a philosophical postmodern puff of uncertainty, subjective views like any other? Neither of us want to see that, but there's clearly a tendency in the public conversation towards the kind of postmodernism that values a neophyte's intuition on a subject alongside the views of a genius with a lifetime of experience in the field. The problem is quite nicely encapsulated by the Trump administration's recent list of banned terms.

So I see my interpretation of the Moon is less of a broad choice than a choice to accept the logic, knowing that which I do thanks to the efforts of many minds far more functional than mine, as above. In short, while everything is relative, some things are more relative than others (apologies Orwell).
I do not see it quite like that.

Your 'interpretation of the Moon' is not about accepting the logic - the Moon is not a logical term. If it was, then 'interpretation' would not be an appropriate word. In logic we have binary values and rules, not interpretations.

By contrast, knowledge' is always knowledge for a purpose. It supplies the answers to questions, so what constitutes knowledge is determined by the questions we ask. It is indeed somebodies 'interpretation', not a 'report from nowhere'. You cannot frame a question without also framing the answer. It isn't just Trump who does this!

Postmodernism does not say any claim is as good as any other, rather it draws attention to our unconscious bias. For example, we privilege some sorts of answers above others because they fit into our existing narrative. (We like narratives). We like to see things in categories, the fewer the better, therefore we seek out similarities rather than differences.

Sometimes, 'knowledge' can be the knowledge of uncertainty. A realization that what we had taken to be certain and unquestionable, common sense, self-evident etc. actually hangs on some assumptions. That is what philosophy reveals.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: You Are God

Post by Greta » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:51 pm

Londoner wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:11 pm
Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am

What of humanity's hard-won body of knowledge - so many geniuses working so hard, some losing their lives, all the testing and re-testing. Is all this to disappear in a philosophical postmodern puff of uncertainty, subjective views like any other? Neither of us want to see that, but there's clearly a tendency in the public conversation towards the kind of postmodernism that values a neophyte's intuition on a subject alongside the views of a genius with a lifetime of experience in the field. The problem is quite nicely encapsulated by the Trump administration's recent list of banned terms.

So I see my interpretation of the Moon is less of a broad choice than a choice to accept the logic, knowing that which I do thanks to the efforts of many minds far more functional than mine, as above. In short, while everything is relative, some things are more relative than others (apologies Orwell).
I do not see it quite like that.

Your 'interpretation of the Moon' is not about accepting the logic - the Moon is not a logical term. If it was, then 'interpretation' would not be an appropriate word. In logic we have binary values and rules, not interpretations.
Yes, I'm not great with the formal terminology. You do relate to what I am saying, though, I expect. How would you phrase it in formal language?

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: You Are God

Post by daramantus » Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm

thought addict, apparently, you are another fake account, sockpuppet from "Your construct". And you both sound like just like another idiot page from facebook, woo woo religious quotes such as "others are not sentient as you are" "you are the one with god" " You are one with existence itself" , which makes me wonder "Your construct" is promoting the same agenda
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
Daramantus you apparently only have a superficial understanding of what I wrote, unless you'd care to explain to me why there cannot be only one consciousness?
Are you denying your consciousness? Are you denying that you exist as an entity inside your body? Is greta denying her own consciousness? we have 3 at least. Unless you believe you are the only one and solipsism is true for you. But I know this isn't the case.
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
What makes you so sure that when you look across a room at someone else, that a fraction of a second ago you didn't used to be them?
Can't tell if trolling or just dumb,you mean a fraction of a second I could feel like the other person? and the other person felt like me? or what? if it felt like me, it still another person because I'm me and I can only be me, no one can be even feel like being me, ONLY I know how it's like to be me, and only others know how it's like to be themselves, and you know what it's like to be you. can you read my thoughts? can you know what i know now? or what I knew before ? last month? last year? . so it doesn't make sense. the facepalm was big in this one, but I guess you weren't being serious, I HOPE.
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
You make a bold claim
No, it isn't any bold claim, it is an evidential claim, if you can't accept it, I feel sorry for you, this isn't philosophy, but mumbo jumbo.
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
You give no evidence to support your claim and the skeptic would say it is a worthless claim. I say it cannot be proved.
I'm in 3 skeptic forums, and yes, they do. Dontaskme tried his idealistic, nihilistic bullshit in the skepticforum, now ask him his experience :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by daramantus on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:21 pm, edited 7 times in total.

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: You Are God

Post by daramantus » Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:27 pm

dancam1974 wrote:
Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:14 pm
Your construct is right as he is presenting the situation from YOUR pov.
From your POV, You are the only one that is certain to exist (you think therefor you are), the rest, me, your construct,... can 1) either exist (idealism, my favourite option) or 2) be a rendering of your brain (solipsism).
can
1) either exist (does not imply idealism)
2) dualism
3) (idealism)
4) hard materialism, monism
̶5̶)̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶(̶s̶o̶l̶i̶p̶s̶i̶s̶m̶)̶.̶
Last edited by daramantus on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: You Are God

Post by daramantus » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:08 pm

petepann1 wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:34 pm
YourConstruct

What do you think about the consciousness desperate loneliness. I think only people who had a psychedelic experience or a spiritual experience of some sort can understand this. I am not at all an experienced psychedelic user but I am going to talk about my one and only ayahuasca experience .

Before going into it I had all the theory down about consciousness, it being one on the top and then splitting itself into multiple consciousness's experiencing itself and all these things. Even before having an experience this seemed like the most logical and neutral explanation of life.

And from when I was small I had something similar to sleep paralysis, only a lot more physical, so I also believe there can be other dimensions and beings in those dimensions. I was curious to explore more of these dimensions and beings.

However, what happened in my experience wasn't anything tangible, or anything I could watch or comprehend. I died. I had a crazy instant feeling of this is it, you have to give up, its too late now. After that there was a lot of disorganized thought and time confusion but one thing that I remember up to this day is when I arrived into a state of existence, which is so hard to describe in words, but a kind of state where I experienced myself in a way which shocked me (bare in mind I am in a state of consciousness where I just died :D ). It was an infinite place without time or space, and just me experiencing myself.

I don't know what exactly I want to ask, but this experience definitely lowered my enthusiasm for spiritual things. Perhaps anyone can relate.

Also, for example after this one experience I can understand how time and space is an illusion.

Time - that's easy to describe. Everything happens now so there is no before or after, its just an illusion.
Space - a bit harder and I think you can only comprehend it during an experience of some sort. Basically you can be moving or going wherever you want, but you are still in the same spot from a consciousness point of view - the only thing that is changing are images and feelings.

And behind Time and Space lays that which I experienced and it is still there.
Tell me what you mean by images? I can find images in google, they can be changing, is it the only thing that is changing inside internet??? Let alone outside of internet, objects are changing, are objects the only things that are changing? You also change, your body changes. Shit changes, or it doesnt. I don't get your analogy of images and feelings and how from your point of view you are in the same location, truth is that you ar enot in the same location I am in now, so how do you explain it?

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: You Are God

Post by daramantus » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:13 pm

jargoodwin wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:33 am
I must tell you guys, it's an absolute trip when the "illusion" of separation crashes before your eyes. The brain is a filter, and nothing more. It filters out most things, both in this world, and from other worlds. It filters out knowledge, truth, and understanding. When people use hallucinogenic drugs, that filter begins to malfunction. The line that separates the "illusory" world and the "real" world begins to blur. As concepts, and notions, and beliefs begin to swirl and combine and merge back into the oneness from which they came, one begins to see the "all" that is in no way separate. When your mind cannot do it's job of creating this illusion of separation, you go "crazy." You see things within things, self within others, beliefs that no longer contradict but are merely another side of the same coin. In a strange way, you're not going "crazy" at all. You're actually going "sane," and seeing the truth for the first time. However, I don't recommend using drugs to get to that perception. I'm an alcohol/drug counselor as well as a mental health counselor, and the brain is a bit fragile. If you break it with hallucinogens, it may not go back to "normal." And while you may think it's incredibly cool to see things as they truly are, you cannot function in this plane of reality without the illusion of separation.
Separation is not an illusion, LSD trips are not proof of jack shit, it's just your brain tripping, and you are another sockpuppet from "Your construct" , I wonder why Your construct didn't get banned with a bunch of sockpuppets and his own trolling with a personal agenda

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: You Are God

Post by thought addict » Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:14 am

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
thought addict, apparently, you are another fake account, sockpuppet from "Your construct". And you both sound like just like another idiot page from facebook, woo woo religious quotes such as "others are not sentient as you are" "you are the one with god" " You are one with existence itself" , which makes me wonder "Your construct" is promoting the same agenda
Daramantus, this is where you fall at the first hurdle. You automatically lump me in with all the religious nuts (I'm not calling YC a nut, just to be clear as I happen to like one of his ideas). Just because I take a casual interest in philosophy and decided to post on here does not mean that I form theories based on faith, emotion and hearsay. I prefer logic and the scientific method. Everything else is mostly a waste of time. I had hoped you might be someone I could have a reasoned, logical argument with but I fear I may have been mistaken.
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
Daramantus you apparently only have a superficial understanding of what I wrote, unless you'd care to explain to me why there cannot be only one consciousness?
Are you denying your consciousness? Are you denying that you exist as an entity inside your body? Is greta denying her own consciousness? we have 3 at least. Unless you believe you are the only one and solipsism is true for you. But I know this isn't the case.
It's very, very simple, if you're willing to consider a new idea for just a moment. You identify at least three consciousnesses. Your mistake is not realizing that observing three instances of something does not mean that they are not in fact the same entity observed at different points in time. You don't even need anything outside of known physics for this. At any given instant of time, a mind has access to the memories of one brain. It assumes that in the past it (that mind) was always associated with that brain and that those memories are correct but the skeptical view is that we cannot rely on this information. A fraction of a second ago your mind could have been experiencing Greta's brain's state and memories and you have no way to prove otherwise.
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
What makes you so sure that when you look across a room at someone else, that a fraction of a second ago you didn't used to be them?
Can't tell if trolling or just dumb,you mean a fraction of a second I could feel like the other person? and the other person felt like me? or what?
You're the one being a bit dumb here dude. I absolutely did not mean just "feel like the other person"! I meant exactly what I said "be the other person"! If you don't believe it's possible for you to be somebody else then how can you believe it's possible for you to be yourself? It doesn't need anything faith based or religious or spiritual, it's a simple matter of identity. If it's not possible for you to have existed as someone else, then it's not possible for you to have existed as anyone. It's really not that hard to wrap your head around!
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
if it felt like me, it still another person because I'm me and I can only be me, no one can be even feel like being me, ONLY I know how it's like to be me, and only others know how it's like to be themselves, and you know what it's like to be you. can you read my thoughts? can you know what i know now? or what I knew before ? last month? last year? . so it doesn't make sense. the facepalm was big in this one, but I guess you weren't being serious, I HOPE.
I'm the one facepalming here, seriously. Of course no-one else can read your thoughts, because a mind only has access to the memories in the brain it is associated with, in one given instant of time. The bit you're missing is it's impossible to tell what information that mind has access to in any other instant of time in the past, because if a mind switches brains, no information is presumably carried over. Unless you believe in Cartesian Dualism. You don't believe in Cartesian Dualism, do you Daramantus?
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
You make a bold claim
No, it isn't any bold claim, it is an evidential claim, if you can't accept it, I feel sorry for you, this isn't philosophy, but mumbo jumbo.
I don't see you producing much evidence at all. You just ask questions about what I said that showed you didn't understand it. And that's OK. One way to think about this stuff is to apply Occam's Razor to the concept of a mind. Reality only needs one mind, so one mind is a simpler model. That doesn't mean it's provably true, but you can't prove that it's false either, which you seem to think.

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
thought addict wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:09 pm
You give no evidence to support your claim and the skeptic would say it is a worthless claim. I say it cannot be proved.
I'm in 3 skeptic forums, and yes, they do. Dontaskme tried his idealistic, nihilistic bullshit in the skepticforum, now ask him his experience :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I can't believe you're comparing my reasoning to Dontaskme - no disrespect to him, but his ideas are entirely religious. Mine are logical.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3072
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: You Are God

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:26 am

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:04 pm
Are you denying your consciousness? Are you denying that you exist as an entity inside your body? Is greta denying her own consciousness? we have 3 at least. Unless you believe you are the only one and solipsism is true for you. But I know this isn't the case.
daramantus is an imagined phantom. There is no entity existing inside a body named daramantus, it's purely a 'thought'

Thoughts are intangible/ invisible.

This is what's being discussed here, please try to discuss the topic at hand and not call people sock-puppets just because you believe what is being discussed is mumbo jumbo....not everyone believes that.. so please try to show some kind of maturity and have some respect for other peoples points of view.

Here, we are discussing not what is the truth, but what is not the truth.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests