Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:43 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:26 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
To, "be," means, "to exist." "Non-existence," means to, "not be." If something does not exist, it cannot be, else it would exist. Therefore non-existence cannot be.

What you just said, ala circumlocution, is, "existence does not exist."

The denial of existence is a kind of insanity. Existence exists and it cannot be any other way, else you would have make the contradictory assertion you made, that, "existence does not exist." There is no alternative to existence.

"To be," means, "to be something." "Nothing," cannot be.
To be more precise....

When you know you exist...then you can also know the opposite of existence... by association.

For example: when your close relative dies of old age, that person in your knowledge no longer exists, and yet that person did exist in your knowledge of their existence. But when the person dies, your knowledge switches to no longer existing.

This knowing, comes solely from your knowledge and conceptual understanding of every known word.

And while concepts are known by association, they can never be your ''direct experience''.

One can never experience one's 'own presence' or one's 'own absence'. This KNOWING is ONE appearing as the many.

In reality, ONENESS is everything that was, is, and ever will be, forever, infinitely for eternity. There is no break, life is a one way street, it's seamless, timeless, and without begining or ending. It's the knowing that cannot be known, in other words, knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of existence...no one knows anything. And knowledge is a fiction upon the not-knowing.

As Oneness appears as the many, each appearance is but an illusory manifestation of oneness itself, one without a second.

And that is the correct philosophical answer to the question of ''Who's'' existence or non-existence is it.

In reality, no thing ..aka you...is being born or dying, except in this conception. . aka knowledge, the illusion appearing real, the real unreal...or the unreal real...same idea.
"Oneness?" One what?
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

Dubious wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:32 pm Not just consciousness can be explained by emergence but the entire universe and whatever it contains from inanimate to animate. The "emergence" derives from quantum fields and its interactions which underpins ALL existence. This has less to do with philosophy than physics.
And from what do "quantum fields" emerge?

And don't say "vacuum," because you will then need to account for how and why the vacuum managed to acquire the properties from which the quantum fields could emerge.

In other words, from what pre-existing source or conditions did the (not-so-empty) vacuum emerge?

And lastly, Dubious, if you think that consciousness...

(or, more specifically, the self-aware "agent" that sits at the throne of consciousness)

...can be explained by emergence, then go for it. Let's hear your explanation.
_______
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:26 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
To, "be," means, "to exist." "Non-existence," means to, "not be." If something does not exist, it cannot be, else it would exist. Therefore non-existence cannot be.

What you just said, ala circumlocution, is, "existence does not exist."
How in the world can you take this statement,...
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
...which is pretty much just a version of this...

EXISTENCE <------- [polar opposites] -------> NONEXISTENCE

...and somehow manage to interpret that as meaning "existence does not exist"? :?

Now I don't know if you are intentionally twisting my words in order to win an argument, or just making an honest mistake, but, no, I did not say, or mean, or imply (ala circumlocution) that "existence does not exist."

So now that we've dealt with your misinterpretation of the first 5% of my prior post, how about you address the remaining 95% that you completely ignored?

For your reading convenience, here it is again...
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:46 pm ...I'm only explaining why I regard such questions as, "why is there something rather than nothing," and, "why is there consciousness," absurd.
The only thing absurd here is the fact that you think that a so-called "sane person" must have been "...corrupted by some academic philosophy or religion..." simply because they are "curious" as to how the vast material reality of this universe came into existence.

My own sense of curiosity has me wondering if it is possible that at some moment in the infinite depths of past eternity...

(as in infinitely prior to the alleged Big Bang inception point of this universe)

...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute "nothingness"?

Yet, the problem is, if it truly was "pure and absolute nothingness" then it contained absolutely no precursory conditions or properties that could have given rise to the "somethingness" of the "reality" that we are presently experiencing.

So that makes no sense.

On the other hand, it is almost impossible to fathom that there was never a point in all of past eternity when the "somethingness" did not exist.

And despite the problem of infinite regress that the following questions imply (of which there are others), there's just no avoiding the multifaceted mystery of...
  • 1. How and from what source did the "eternal somethingness" acquire its being and properties?
  • 2. Why are the properties of the "eternal somethingness" so amenable to being shaped into pretty much anything imaginable - as is witnessed in the near infinite phenomenal features of the universe?
  • 3. How did the "eternal somethingness" manage to "wake up"? In other words, how did it manage to organize its constituent properties in such a way that would allow consciousness to "emerge" from the fabric of the "eternal somethingness" - especially if that consciousness might have been an initial Creator Being who then brought order to the "eternal somethingness"?
So let's have it, RC, why is it "absurd" to ask those questions?
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:26 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
To, "be," means, "to exist." "Non-existence," means to, "not be." If something does not exist, it cannot be, else it would exist. Therefore non-existence cannot be.

What you just said, ala circumlocution, is, "existence does not exist."
How in the world can you take this statement,...
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
...which is pretty much just a version of this...

EXISTENCE <------- [polar opposites] -------> NONEXISTENCE

...and somehow manage to interpret that as meaning "existence does not exist"? :?

Now I don't know if you are intentionally twisting my words in order to win an argument, or just making an honest mistake, but, no, I did not say, or mean, or imply (ala circumlocution) that "existence does not exist."

So now that we've dealt with your misinterpretation of the first 5% of my prior post, how about you address the remaining 95% that you completely ignored?

For your reading convenience, here it is again...
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:46 pm ...I'm only explaining why I regard such questions as, "why is there something rather than nothing," and, "why is there consciousness," absurd.
The only thing absurd here is the fact that you think that a so-called "sane person" must have been "...corrupted by some academic philosophy or religion..." simply because they are "curious" as to how the vast material reality of this universe came into existence.

My own sense of curiosity has me wondering if it is possible that at some moment in the infinite depths of past eternity...

(as in infinitely prior to the alleged Big Bang inception point of this universe)

...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute "nothingness"?

Yet, the problem is, if it truly was "pure and absolute nothingness" then it contained absolutely no precursory conditions or properties that could have given rise to the "somethingness" of the "reality" that we are presently experiencing.

So that makes no sense.

On the other hand, it is almost impossible to fathom that there was never a point in all of past eternity when the "somethingness" did not exist.

And despite the problem of infinite regress that the following questions imply (of which there are others), there's just no avoiding the multifaceted mystery of...
  • 1. How and from what source did the "eternal somethingness" acquire its being and properties?
  • 2. Why are the properties of the "eternal somethingness" so amenable to being shaped into pretty much anything imaginable - as is witnessed in the near infinite phenomenal features of the universe?
  • 3. How did the "eternal somethingness" manage to "wake up"? In other words, how did it manage to organize its constituent properties in such a way that would allow consciousness to "emerge" from the fabric of the "eternal somethingness" - especially if that consciousness might have been an initial Creator Being who then brought order to the "eternal somethingness"?
So let's have it, RC, why is it "absurd" to ask those questions?
_______
Seed's, believe whatever you want. If you can make yourself believe there could be nothing, how can there need to be a, "creator." Is the, "creator," nothing? If you believe in a, "creator," than you do not believe there was ever nothing. It's impossible.

I don't care if you want to believe in that mystic nonsense. I can only believe in that which I am directly aware of and can discover by means of what I directly perceive.

Here is something from another article I'm writing that will explain:
Every lie of religion and philosophy that has ever been put over has relied on a single deception: the insistence that the world and universe that is directly perceived, the tangible, demonstrable, palpable world, that is directly seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted, is not the real world; that some intangible, ineffable, unperceivable existence is the real world. Every version of that lie asserts that in some inexplicable way, the world we directly experience is deceptive or incomplete and that there is something more real behind that world that cannot be directly perceive, or even perfectly described, but is, nevertheless, the true reality. Anyone who does not fall for that deception is called a naive realist.

The idea that the world of actual galaxies, stars, and planets, the world of lands and oceans, of mountains, lakes and rivers, of rocks and trees and animals and human beings that is directly experienced is not real, but some imaginary fictional existence that no one can possibly be aware of is real is so patently absurd, nothing short of some kind of pervasive insanity can explain its prevalence. Yet that lie is promoted and propagated in some form by all religions, almost every philosophy in history and today's academic perversions of the sciences.
I'm not interested in convincing you of that position. You seem to be bothered by the fact that's what I believe. If you have even one sliver of evidence that I can examine myself for what you believe, I'd be delighted to see it. Otherwise you are just arguing using language that identifies nothing but made-up fictions as far as I'm concerned.

"...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute 'nothingness'?" for example, is pure meaningless fiction. How could there have been such a, "time" if there was nothing. Time is an attribute of something. It doesn't mean anything. Even if cosmology, as currently described has any basis, it does not mean there was nothing before the big bang, though I personally do not accept the conjectures of cosmology and evolution as science.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm Seed's, believe whatever you want. If you can make yourself believe there could be nothing, how can there need to be a, "creator." Is the, "creator," nothing? If you believe in a, "creator," than you do not believe there was ever nothing. It's impossible.
It is obvious that you made no real effort to carefully read what I wrote, for if you had, you would have seen that I declared that it "makes no sense" to think that reality arose (or emerged) from nothing.

Furthermore, the fact that you took the following line...
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm "...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute 'nothingness'?" for example, is pure meaningless fiction.
...and quoted it out of context in a way that made it seem like I was promoting it as being true, when, in fact, it was precisely what I was referring to that made no sense,...

...demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to be honest in a debate situation.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm Here is something from another article I'm writing that will explain:
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm
[......]
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm I'm not interested in convincing you of that position.
Then why offer it?

Indeed, if you are not here to convince any of us of the logic and worth of your philosophical position on various subjects, then why are you even here?
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:17 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm Seed's, believe whatever you want. If you can make yourself believe there could be nothing, how can there need to be a, "creator." Is the, "creator," nothing? If you believe in a, "creator," than you do not believe there was ever nothing. It's impossible.
It is obvious that you made no real effort to carefully read what I wrote, for if you had, you would have seen that I declared that it "makes no sense" to think that reality arose (or emerged) from nothing.

Furthermore, the fact that you took the following line...
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm "...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute 'nothingness'?" for example, is pure meaningless fiction.
...and quoted it out of context in a way that made it seem like I was promoting it as being true, when, in fact, it was precisely what I was referring to that made no sense,...

...demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to be honest in a debate situation.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm Here is something from another article I'm writing that will explain:
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm
[......]
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm I'm not interested in convincing you of that position.
Then why offer it?

Indeed, if you are not here to convince any of us of the logic and worth of your philosophical position on various subjects, then why are you even here?
_______
Because there are a few others here who are not trying to promote some religion or ideology, who are only in exchanging ideas. Some people are actually interested in learning something new, and since 99% of the commenters here just keep repeating the same old philosophical nonsense they were taught by their academic or religious authorities and never have an original thought of their own, I write for those who like new ideas.

I'm not trying to convince anyone and have no ideology, program, social/political position, or religion to promote. I enjoy discussing ideas, and with regard to others, only them to be successful in their own lives. If you object to those motives, just ignore what I write.

Before you make any more silly judgements about what have to say and why, please see, What I Don't Believe,
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:13 am Because there are a few others here who are not trying to promote some religion or ideology, who are only in exchanging ideas. Some people are actually interested in learning something new, and since 99% of the commenters here just keep repeating the same old philosophical nonsense they were taught by their academic or religious authorities and never have an original thought of their own, I write for those who like new ideas.

I'm not trying to convince anyone and have no ideology, program, social/political position, or religion to promote. I enjoy discussing ideas, and with regard to others, only them to be successful in their own lives. If you object to those motives, just ignore what I write.

Before you make any more silly judgements about what have to say and why, please see, What I Don't Believe,
Naive realism is about as original as the Flat Earth, it's like philosophical Flat Earthism. You sure spend a lot of time not trying to convince people of it, and that philosophical Flat Earthers like you are the saviours of sanity in a world gone mad. And that your denialist ideology isn't an ideology. :)

You got old and wise but those ungrateful young ones around you got tired of your speeches, so you took it to the internet?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:13 am Because there are a few others here who are not trying to promote some religion or ideology, who are only in exchanging ideas. Some people are actually interested in learning something new, and since 99% of the commenters here just keep repeating the same old philosophical nonsense they were taught by their academic or religious authorities and never have an original thought of their own, I write for those who like new ideas.

I'm not trying to convince anyone and have no ideology, program, social/political position, or religion to promote. I enjoy discussing ideas, and with regard to others, only them to be successful in their own lives. If you object to those motives, just ignore what I write.

Before you make any more silly judgements about what have to say and why, please see, What I Don't Believe,
Naive realism is about as original as the Flat Earth, it's like philosophical Flat Earthism. You sure spend a lot of time not trying to convince people of it, and that philosophical Flat Earthers like you are the saviours of sanity in a world gone mad. And that your denialist ideology isn't an ideology. :)

You got old and wise but those ungrateful young ones around you got tired of your speeches, so you took it to the internet?
There. Feel better now you have that off your chest?

Now, look around you and see how wonderfully the world of idiots that has swallowed every lie of the religionists, philosophers, academics, and political ideologists is doing. They have all bought into that sophisty that no one can ever know the truth and the reality you actually experience and live in is not real--it's call sophisticated, but its just the same old superstitious nonsense that every lying cheat and scam artist has always promoted in a new package.

"Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice:" be sophisticated, believing whatever your teachers and authorities teach you and suffer the consequences, or be naive and take responsibility for your own life, thinking for yourself and making your own life one worth living. It's your life and your choice and nobody else's business, especially not mine.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dontaskme »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:18 pm "Oneness?" One what?
One one.


There is no other reality, there can only be one reality. 'Reality' in the contextual sense of this immediate 'aliveness', or of this immediate 'existence'.


''Knowledge of Conception'' can only ever point to the oneness of being ...While being IS...KNOWLEDGE of being is an illusory projected sense of 'self and otherness', brought about by sentient neurological reflexive impulses, insofar as knowledge informs there is no reality out-there separate from the space in which it is seen to exist. The illusory divide between seer and seen, a subject and the object is an illusion, as both seer and seen have to exist simultaneously in the exact same instant they are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness...which is inseparably ''one thing'' always present.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dubious »

You seem to be a little pissed-off based on the strident emphasis of your questions and arguments...but maybe I'm wrong and it was never so intended.

Anyway...

Dubious wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:32 pm Not just consciousness can be explained by emergence, but the entire universe and whatever it contains from inanimate to animate. The "emergence" derives from quantum fields and its interactions, which underpins ALL existence. This has less to do with philosophy than physics.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:35 pmAnd from what do "quantum fields" emerge?
Why is that important? It adds nothing to the conversation! It's an almost infallible certainty that we and EVERYTHING in the universe, meaning the universe itself is a complex of quantum fields. Whether these fields are themselves emergent from some still lower-level phenomena is unknown. The closest speculation of such is String Theory which itself requires the underpinnings of a multiverse.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:35 pmAnd don't say "vacuum," because you will then need to account for how and why the vacuum managed to acquire the properties from which the quantum fields could emerge.
As mentioned, how and why quantum fields exist is not known; we only know that they do. To know that or how it may present itself is a completely separate area of inquiry.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:35 pmIn other words, from what pre-existing source or conditions did the (not-so-empty) vacuum emerge?
Again, it's not in the least important! It may eventually be known or never; stick with what's known and capable of being known, i.e., within its domain or region of applicability. So far the lowest level is that of quantum theory. It may already be the lowest or itself be an emergence of a still lower level. It's not certain we'll ever know.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:35 pmAnd lastly, Dubious, if you think that consciousness...

(or, more specifically, the self-aware "agent" that sits at the throne of consciousness)

...can be explained by emergence, then go for it. Let's hear your explanation.
Consciousness is derived from macroscopic entities called brains which in turn is composed of fundamental particles, i.e., atoms and molecules. The larger structure - brains in this case - operates by its own rules separate from that which underpins it and therefore acknowledged as emergent. A neurologist, for example, does not need to know the actual physics of its collective particles anywhere near as much as the operation of its macro manifestations of which consciousness is the upshot.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:18 pm "Oneness?" One what?
One one.


There is no other reality, there can only be one reality. 'Reality' in the contextual sense of this immediate 'aliveness', or of this immediate 'existence'.


''Knowledge of Conception'' can only ever point to the oneness of being ...While being IS...KNOWLEDGE of being is an illusory projected sense of 'self and otherness', brought about by sentient neurological reflexive impulses, insofar as knowledge informs there is no reality out-there separate from the space in which it is seen to exist. The illusory divide between seer and seen, a subject and the object is an illusion, as both seer and seen have to exist simultaneously in the exact same instant they are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness...which is inseparably ''one thing'' always present.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:40 pm
Atla wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:13 am Because there are a few others here who are not trying to promote some religion or ideology, who are only in exchanging ideas. Some people are actually interested in learning something new, and since 99% of the commenters here just keep repeating the same old philosophical nonsense they were taught by their academic or religious authorities and never have an original thought of their own, I write for those who like new ideas.

I'm not trying to convince anyone and have no ideology, program, social/political position, or religion to promote. I enjoy discussing ideas, and with regard to others, only them to be successful in their own lives. If you object to those motives, just ignore what I write.

Before you make any more silly judgements about what have to say and why, please see, What I Don't Believe,
Naive realism is about as original as the Flat Earth, it's like philosophical Flat Earthism. You sure spend a lot of time not trying to convince people of it, and that philosophical Flat Earthers like you are the saviours of sanity in a world gone mad. And that your denialist ideology isn't an ideology. :)

You got old and wise but those ungrateful young ones around you got tired of your speeches, so you took it to the internet?
There. Feel better now you have that off your chest?

Now, look around you and see how wonderfully the world of idiots that has swallowed every lie of the religionists, philosophers, academics, and political ideologists is doing. They have all bought into that sophisty that no one can ever know the truth and the reality you actually experience and live in is not real--it's call sophisticated, but its just the same old superstitious nonsense that every lying cheat and scam artist has always promoted in a new package.

"Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice:" be sophisticated, believing whatever your teachers and authorities teach you and suffer the consequences, or be naive and take responsibility for your own life, thinking for yourself and making your own life one worth living. It's your life and your choice and nobody else's business, especially not mine.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 80 years, or do you really not know that most people (including me) do treat the perceived world as the real world?

Only in extreme cases like schizophrenia are people forced to deviate from that. Of course your philosophy would doom schizophrenics to death or worse.

Well maybe YOU were a member of some real-world-denying cult? Who hurt you so much?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:57 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:40 pm
Atla wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 pm
Naive realism is about as original as the Flat Earth, it's like philosophical Flat Earthism. You sure spend a lot of time not trying to convince people of it, and that philosophical Flat Earthers like you are the saviours of sanity in a world gone mad. And that your denialist ideology isn't an ideology. :)

You got old and wise but those ungrateful young ones around you got tired of your speeches, so you took it to the internet?
There. Feel better now you have that off your chest?

Now, look around you and see how wonderfully the world of idiots that has swallowed every lie of the religionists, philosophers, academics, and political ideologists is doing. They have all bought into that sophisty that no one can ever know the truth and the reality you actually experience and live in is not real--it's call sophisticated, but its just the same old superstitious nonsense that every lying cheat and scam artist has always promoted in a new package.

"Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice:" be sophisticated, believing whatever your teachers and authorities teach you and suffer the consequences, or be naive and take responsibility for your own life, thinking for yourself and making your own life one worth living. It's your life and your choice and nobody else's business, especially not mine.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 80 years, or do you really not know that most people (including me) do treat the perceived world as the real world?

Only in extreme cases like schizophrenia are people forced to deviate from that. Of course your philosophy would doom schizophrenics to death or worse.

Well maybe YOU were a member of some real-world-denying cult? Who hurt you so much?
Sure. No one believes there is a supernatural world of gods, and spirits, and angels, the Hindus do not believe the perceived world is an illusion, and Platonic realists do not believe there is a real world of which this one is only a shadow, and no Christian believes the material world is contingent on some mystical ultimate reality (God) that created it, and the pseudo-sciences do not claim the, "really real," world is the world of subatomic particles and fields and that the one perceived is not as it actually seems, and crackpot philosophers are not arguing that what seems real is only a simulation or only one of many possible realities. I have no idea where I heard these things. Apparently you haven't.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:24 pm
Atla wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:57 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:40 pm
There. Feel better now you have that off your chest?

Now, look around you and see how wonderfully the world of idiots that has swallowed every lie of the religionists, philosophers, academics, and political ideologists is doing. They have all bought into that sophisty that no one can ever know the truth and the reality you actually experience and live in is not real--it's call sophisticated, but its just the same old superstitious nonsense that every lying cheat and scam artist has always promoted in a new package.

"Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice:" be sophisticated, believing whatever your teachers and authorities teach you and suffer the consequences, or be naive and take responsibility for your own life, thinking for yourself and making your own life one worth living. It's your life and your choice and nobody else's business, especially not mine.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 80 years, or do you really not know that most people (including me) do treat the perceived world as the real world?

Only in extreme cases like schizophrenia are people forced to deviate from that. Of course your philosophy would doom schizophrenics to death or worse.

Well maybe YOU were a member of some real-world-denying cult? Who hurt you so much?
Sure. No one believes there is a supernatural world of gods, and spirits, and angels, the Hindus do not believe the perceived world is an illusion, and Platonic realists do not believe there is a real world of which this one is only a shadow, and no Christian believes the material world is contingent on some mystical ultimate reality (God) that created it, and the pseudo-sciences do not claim the, "really real," world is the world of subatomic particles and fields and that the one perceived is not as it actually seems, and crackpot philosophers are not arguing that what seems real is only a simulation or only one of many possible realities. I have no idea where I heard these things. Apparently you haven't.
Maybe you should try to actually meet real people in the real world, because few think that the world is an illusion. Actually it's a lot more common that they wish this wasn't the real world.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:44 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:24 pm
Atla wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:57 pm
Have you been living under a rock for the last 80 years, or do you really not know that most people (including me) do treat the perceived world as the real world?

Only in extreme cases like schizophrenia are people forced to deviate from that. Of course your philosophy would doom schizophrenics to death or worse.

Well maybe YOU were a member of some real-world-denying cult? Who hurt you so much?
Sure. No one believes there is a supernatural world of gods, and spirits, and angels, the Hindus do not believe the perceived world is an illusion, and Platonic realists do not believe there is a real world of which this one is only a shadow, and no Christian believes the material world is contingent on some mystical ultimate reality (God) that created it, and the pseudo-sciences do not claim the, "really real," world is the world of subatomic particles and fields and that the one perceived is not as it actually seems, and crackpot philosophers are not arguing that what seems real is only a simulation or only one of many possible realities. I have no idea where I heard these things. Apparently you haven't.
Maybe you should try to actually meet real people in the real world, because few think that the world is an illusion. Actually it's a lot more common that they wish this wasn't the real world.
Sounds like good advice.

I agree with Oscar Wilde: "The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself."

Thanks for your interest.
Post Reply