Ridiculous questions relating to consciousness.

[Stuartp523]

Using words one can manipulate the issue of consciousness - speaking of fantastical issues such as the ephemeral awareness versus zombie-like "fake awareness" all one wants, but what remains is that if one is conscious it simply means he's aware of one or more things posited as objects.

To ask why people are conscious is to ask why people need to be aware of their environment, which is a naive question. The questioning along these lines often turns to what one can do to extend the duration of his consciousness. Firstly, its a representation of the shallow nature of the questioner, who narcissistically takes his personal level of cognition to be as good as it gets, that he doesn't emphasize nearly as much the question of how he can increase the range and quality of his consciousness. Secondly, this question, too, is naive; of course to extend the duration of one's consciousness is to extend one's life.

A similar line of questioning relates to what makes the personal experience of existing of one person to be distinct from another. The answer of course, is the same as the answer to the question of what physically makes one distinct from another.

When you, whether as a hypothetical or an actual physical act, dissolve some of the physical distinctions between any two people, then of course you dissolve the distinction between the experience of existing between those two people. This fact doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that each person's consciousness is derived from a universal consciousness, but leads to the conclusion that to have a distinct experience of existing one needs to be a disctinct being.

[Ginkgo]

Using words one can manipulate the issue of consciousness - speaking of fantastical issues such as the ephemeral awareness versus zombie-like "fake awareness" all one wants, but what remains is that if one is conscious it simply means he's aware of one or more things posited as objects.

The philosophical zombie argument is an argument that is designed to highlight the dualistic nature of consciousness. Chalmers is a property dualist, but there are other forms of dualism. Chalmers divides consciousness into what he calls, "the hard problem of consciousness" and "the easy problem of consciousness." The assumption by Chalmers is that consciousness is in fact a dualistic problem. Physicalists on the other hand disagree and want to say there is no dualism so there is no hard problem when it comes to consciousness. All can be explained in terms of the the easy problem.

Consciousness explained in terms of awareness is one of the tools of analysis used by neurophilosophers. However, it isn't always that simple because there are many things that enter into our brain that escapes our awareness. The other important question is under what conditions does awareness get in. The answer usually given is that we are conscious of the things we attend.

[Stuartp523]

Consciousness explained in terms of awareness is one of the tools of analysis used by neurophilosophers. However, it isn't always that simple because there are many things that enter into our brain that escapes our awareness. The other important question is under what conditions does awareness get in. The answer usually given is that we are conscious of the things we attend.

The term consciousness, as I use it anyway, is synonymous with awareness. I'm only vaguely familiar with all you said in the first paragraph but I have no knowledge of the term being defined in any other way by anyone not trying to use logical dead ends to affirm their rootless Judeo-Christian beliefs or reaffirm rootlessness if devoid of those beliefs.

[Wyman]

Using words one can manipulate the issue of consciousness - speaking of fantastical issues such as the ephemeral awareness versus zombie-like "fake awareness" all one wants, but what remains is that if one is conscious it simply means he's aware of one or more things posited as objects.

To ask why people are conscious is to ask why people need to be aware of their environment, which is a naive question. The questioning along these lines often turns to what one can do to extend the duration of his consciousness. Firstly, its a representation of the shallow nature of the questioner, who narcissistically takes his personal level of cognition to be as good as it gets, that he doesn't emphasize nearly as much the question of how he can increase the range and quality of his consciousness. Secondly, this question, too, is naive; of course to extend the duration of one's consciousness is to extend one's life.

A similar line of questioning relates to what makes the personal experience of existing of one person to be distinct from another. The answer of course, is the same as the answer to the question of what physically makes one distinct from another.

When you, whether as a hypothetical or an actual physical act, dissolve some of the physical distinctions between any two people, then of course you dissolve the distinction between the experience of existing between those two people. This fact doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that each person's consciousness is derived from a universal consciousness, but leads to the conclusion that to have a distinct experience of existing one needs to be a disctinct being.

Sorry, I had written something here but it must have got erased. I'm sure it was profound.

[Ginkgo]

Consciousness explained in terms of awareness is one of the tools of analysis used by neurophilosophers. However, it isn't always that simple because there are many things that enter into our brain that escapes our awareness. The other important question is under what conditions does awareness get in. The answer usually given is that we are conscious of the things we attend.

The term consciousness, as I use it anyway, is synonymous with awareness. I'm only vaguely familiar with all you said in the first paragraph but I have no knowledge of the term being defined in any other way by anyone not trying to use logical dead ends to affirm their rootless Judeo-Christian beliefs or reaffirm rootlessness if devoid of those beliefs.

No, this is strictly a scientific explanation for consciousness and the role attention plays. I can assure you there are no religious connotations attached.

Basically it just means that many things get into our consciousness and we will always have degrees of unawareness of these things until we decide to attend to them. For example, we might find ourselves in a movie theatre with a noisy air-conditioner. We can be so engrossed in the movie we don't hear the air-conditioner. We can hear it if we decide to attend to it.

[HexHammer]

OP is incoherent babble!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Using words one can manipulate the issue of consciousness - speaking of fantastical issues such as the ephemeral awareness versus zombie-like "fake awareness" all one wants, but what remains is that if one is conscious it simply means he's aware of one or more things posited as objects.

Why pit short-lived, transitory awareness to that of zombie-like "fake awareness?
Otherwise, OK.

To ask why people are conscious is to ask why people need to be aware of their environment, which is a naive question. The questioning along these lines often turns to what one can do to extend the duration of his consciousness. Firstly, its a representation of the shallow nature of the questioner, who narcissistically takes his personal level of cognition to be as good as it gets, that he doesn't emphasize nearly as much the question of how he can increase the range and quality of his consciousness. Secondly, this question, too, is naive; of course to extend the duration of one's consciousness is to extend one's life.

Yet the "Flight From Death: The Quest for Immortality" is in fact humankind's main theme of exploration, just look to religion if unsure. And I'm confused because if in fact he could, then "the question of how he can increase the range and quality of his consciousness," would necessarily be realized.

A similar line of questioning relates to what makes the personal experience of existing of one person to be distinct from another. The answer of course, is the same as the answer to the question of what physically makes one distinct from another.

But then there is the question of time, "when" one "is" so as to be distinct from another that "was." When we die, all our constituents return to the earth awaiting new use, a different incarnation, the same elements, same atoms! We are in fact drinking the water that others have drank, thousands of years ago. Is it possible for all the constituents, that comprise you right now, or rather had comprised you at conception, to again come together with a new conception, and all additions to those being exactly the same, and if so, what would the results be? Another you, in another time? Is the likelihood impossible, given enough time?

When you, whether as a hypothetical or an actual physical act, dissolve some of the physical distinctions between any two people, then of course you dissolve the distinction between the experience of existing between those two people. This fact doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that each person's consciousness is derived from a universal consciousness, but leads to the conclusion that to have a distinct experience of existing one needs to be a disctinct being.
Yet we are in fact stardust. Chemically, iron is just a 'specific number' of "identical" protons, neutrons and electrons, as those comprising helium, yet those two elements are different. How can you explain that something identical yields something different, simply because of a different quantity of them? If I place 100 apples in a bushel basket, or 10 apples in another basket are they not still just apples in a basket? So then why does a particular different set of molecules, create a unique individual human, they are the very same molecules, an iron molecule is in fact an iron molecule. What is this difference that's added to the equation? Does this beg that there are differences between any two particular molecules, or something mystical, beyond current human explanation? Does it come from the electromagnetic energy that binds them all together, that mystical force, or maybe the four forces, if in fact here is a difference between them. Maybe the energy that binds all things together, is the real creator, that which does the differentiation between all things made of particles. The creator (I hate the word god) particle simply a myth, it actually being electromotive force, that is in fact the creator of the cosmos.

[Gee]

I have to agree. Ridiculous questions.

Gee

[SpheresOfBalance]

I have to agree. Ridiculous questions.

Gee

Care to expound, I always like hearing your specific thoughts on matters.

[Stuartp523]

Sorry, I had written something here but it must have got erased. I'm sure it was profound.

Let's see.

A responce to a deconstruction of near incoherent babble - which is babble in itself...

OP is incoherent babble!

...was probably not that profound. Which would have probably been for the best.