The Nature of Consciousness

[Speakpigeon]

... I don't need to be given an explanation of reality because by definition there is none. But explain to me what is really the physical world.

At first blush, the request seems disingenuous. If you know there is no reality (by definition) what would be the point of asking for an explanation of what you know does not really exist?

Exactly what is defined in such a way that it means there is no reality? "There is no reality," is not a definition of anything, it is simply a proposition.

I see. So, you are having a conversation with whom exactly?! Surely not me. So, why do you quote my post?!

Your mention of the phrase "There is no reality,", in between quotes, implies this is something I said. But I didn't said that. I didn't suggest that. What I say doesn't imply that.

So why do you believe in God again?

Since you asked: the physical world is the one in which its constituent elements are discovered and described by chemistry, for example. The one you eat, drink, sleep, read, shop, drive your car, make love, and write responses to posts in.

OK, so God is the being which can be discovered using the power of your mind. It is a being that can help you when in need and it, obviously, created the whole world, which must be reassuring. So why do you believe in God?

OK, we can stop here. You don't seem to understand the strictures of rational debate. The first one being that you should attribute to the other guy something he didn't say.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Existence is indeed fundamental but existence only as you experience it subjectively, and as such it implies neither space, time nor space-time just as the quale of redness doesn't imply anything about the physical world. Existence in space-time, or more generally in the physical world, or indeed existence of the physical world isn't fundamental since all these concepts are beliefs derived from our experience.
EB

Space and time are concepts for physical phenomena. Things really do have positional relations to each other, and things that move change their positional relationships and those relationships are called spatial. Time is a way, along with velocity, of relating motions to each other. The are not themselves entities, but they certainly exist as real physical relationships. Those relationship exist independently of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of them.

Sure, that's what you believe, but I don't see how that would be anything like a considered reply to what I said.

As for, "the quale of redness doesn't imply anything about the physical world," why does science attribute a unique range of electro-magnetic wavelengths to the color red if there is no actual relationship between them?

You would need to ask scientists about that. You see, God exists because why would the Pope say that God exists if He didn't?

OK, please ignore my posts.
EB

[RCSaunders]

... I don't need to be given an explanation of reality because by definition there is none. But explain to me what is really the physical world.

At first blush, the request seems disingenuous. If you know there is no reality (by definition) what would be the point of asking for an explanation of what you know does not really exist?

Exactly what is defined in such a way that it means there is no reality? "There is no reality," is not a definition of anything, it is simply a proposition.

I see. So, you are having a conversation with whom exactly?! Surely not me. So, why do you quote my post?!

Your mention of the phrase "There is no reality,", in between quotes, implies this is something I said. But I didn't said that. I didn't suggest that. What I say doesn't imply that.

So why do you believe in God again?

Since you asked: the physical world is the one in which its constituent elements are discovered and described by chemistry, for example. The one you eat, drink, sleep, read, shop, drive your car, make love, and write responses to posts in.

OK, so God is the being which can be discovered using the power of your mind. It is a being that can help you when in need and it, obviously, created the whole world, which must be reassuring. So why do you believe in God?

OK, we can stop here. You don't seem to understand the strictures of rational debate. The first one being that you should attribute to the other guy something he didn't say.
EB

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought, in your sentence, "I don't need to be given an explanation of reality because by definition there is none," your phrase, "because by definition there is none," modified the noun, "reality," immediately preceding it. You apparently meant for it to modify the entire phrase, "an explanation of reality." Is that right?

If that is the case, I apologize for misreading what you wrote, but it raises another question. What do you mean by, "an explanation of reality?" Do you not believe it is possible to define the word, "reality," that is, to explain what you mean when you use the word? What is someone supposed to understand you are referring to when you use the word reality? What other explanation of reality might there be?

[RCSaunders]

Sure, that's what you believe, but I don't see how that would be anything like a considered reply to what I said.

You don't really? Then I'm sorry about that.

As for, "the quale of redness doesn't imply anything about the physical world," why does science attribute a unique range of electro-magnetic wavelengths to the color red if there is no actual relationship between them?

You would need to ask scientists about that. You see, God exists because why would the Pope say that God exists if He didn't?

I do not take the word of any authority no matter what he calls himself, scientist, philosopher, or pope.

OK, please ignore my posts.
EB

Take it easy. I find your posts both interesting, thought-provoking, and entertaining. So I will not ignore them.

[Speakpigeon]

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought, in your sentence, "I don't need to be given an explanation of reality because by definition there is none," your phrase, "because by definition there is none," modified the noun, "reality," immediately preceding it. You apparently meant for it to modify the entire phrase, "an explanation of reality." Is that right?

It is.

If that is the case, I apologize for misreading what you wrote, but it raises another question. What do you mean by, "an explanation of reality?"

It would be clear if you were to assume dictionary definitions. But you obviously don't.

Do you not believe it is possible to define the word, "reality," that is, to explain what you mean when you use the word? What is someone supposed to understand you are referring to when you use the word reality? What other explanation of reality might there be?

You think my idea of "an explanation of reality" is the same as your idea of "a definition" of the word "reality"?! Do you think I am so stupid as to think there is no definition of the word "reality"?

I can only give you this advice. Read carefully what people say and only comment on what they say.
EB

[phenomenal graffiti]

I think that when you take consciousness (re: first-person subjective experience and that which is subjectively experienced) off the table, the physical world (that which we "perceive" or that which purportedly exists in the external world) must, like God, be taken merely on faith.

Existence, actual existence as opposed to what we imagine or believe, appears and has only ever appeared in the form of a person and that which the person experiences, ergo: existence only appears and has only appeared in the form of first-person subjective experience.

We do not have evidence of the existence of anything except subjective experience, as it is the only thing that demonstrates it's existence. Physical matter and energy, ergo: that which is not a person and what the person experiences is in actuality make-believe believed to be real independent of evidence of its existence.

It is also irrational for something that is not first-person subjective experience to have anything to do with the existence of first-person subjective experience as, well, the thing is not or is something other than subjective experience.

[tapaticmadness]

I am a realist, an extreme, direct realist. That means that what I directly see exists and that includes all manner of illusion and misprision. There is no subjective realm; everything is objective, external to my seeing. The world consists of facts. Facts are propositional. Relations are a very big part of that, as are logical connectors. It is all real, i.e. external to my thinking about it.

I am also aware of my own thoughts, eg. the thought that I forgot to bring my keys which are lying on the dining-room table. Thoughts exist as objects of awareness. And then there are thoughts of thoughts of thoughts ... . Whatever is present to my mind exists. As for the ontological elements that go into making facts, that is another question for another time, but they also exist external to my thinking about them. I am not a philosophical idealist.

[seeds]

I think that when you take consciousness (re: first-person subjective experience and that which is subjectively experienced) off the table, the physical world (that which we "perceive" or that which purportedly exists in the external world) must, like God, be taken merely on faith.

Yeah, well, unless you are a solipsist who believes that your particular first-person subjective experience is responsible for the manifestation of the earth, and the sun, and a hundred-billion galaxies of other suns and planets,...

(not to mention the other 7.7 billion humans who claim to be having their own first-person subjective experiences)

...then it is a “faith” founded upon some pretty compelling evidence.

We do not have evidence of the existence of anything except subjective experience, as it is the only thing that demonstrates it's existence.

I suggest that what you would experience if you were to shove your hand into a flowing river of molten lava, would pretty much demonstrate the existence of the lava. Unless, of course (as mentioned earlier), you are a solipsist who believes that the lava is merely a projection of your own subjective makeup.

So I guess the question is: are you a proponent of solipsism?

If yes, then stop talking to your sock puppets as if they were conscious entities, for it makes you look crazy (if only to yourself ).

And if no, then clearly, something other than your own subjective experience exists - in and of itself - independent of you.
_______

[seeds]

I am a realist, an extreme, direct realist. That means that what I directly see exists and that includes all manner of illusion and misprision. There is no subjective realm; everything is objective, external to my seeing. The world consists of facts. Facts are propositional. Relations are a very big part of that, as are logical connectors. It is all real, i.e. external to my thinking about it.

Around these here parts, the idea of something being “external” to your seeing, or “external” to your thinking about it, implies an “internal” aspect of your being.

Or, in other words, it implies the existence of your own subjectively-based thought processes that take place within the closed and private (subjective) dimension of your own personal mind.

Ergo, your rejection of a subjective realm is contradicted by the implications of your very own statements.

I am also aware of my own thoughts,...

Again, your own personal thoughts are purely “subjective” to you and to no one else.

So why are you denying the existence of a subjective realm?
_______

[tapaticmadness]

Around these here parts, the idea of something being “external” to your seeing, or “external” to your thinking about it, implies an “internal” aspect of your being.

I think it does not imply an “internal” aspect of “my” being. There are thoughts and there are the objects of thought. Thoughts exist as much as anything exists. The relation or connection between thought and object is external to both thought and object. That is Russell’s Doctrine of External Relations.

I, at times, do exemplify thoughts. They are universals that can be exemplified by many different particular minds. I think the problem with my original wording was my use of the word “my”. I am not an agent that creates thought. They are things separate from me or the particular that I am. If the word “my” is interpreted as “exemplified by me”, then I think I can skirt your objection. The Nexus of Exemplification is external to both the universal that is exemplified and the particular that exemplifies.

My point is that all the thoughts that I exemplify are external to me. The relation between them and me is external to both. Again. I am a big believer in external relations, not internal.

Maybe none of that makes any sense around those parts there. I follow Russell in his revolt against idealism.

[henry quirk]

phenom sez the apple on my table (as well as the table, the floor, etc.) is illusion.

tap sez the apple on my table (as well as the table, the floor, etc.) is real.

tap, of course, is right. The apple is real, exists independent of any observation, and -- when observed -- is pretty much as it appears to be.

Direct-/Common Sense-/Philosophical-Realism:

Idealism (any strain)/Anti-Realism:

[seeds]

My point is that all the thoughts that I exemplify are external to me.

I can’t figure out what you mean by “exemplify” in the above sentence.

If you are simply stating that all forms of thought - in general - are external to you...

(i.e., external to the eye of your mind, external to the core or locus of your personal consciousness, external to your “I Am-ness,” external to that which you call your “me”)

...then I might agree that the vivid, three-dimensional objects you encounter in your dreams, for example, may indeed be external to that “me” you are referring to.

However, those inner dream objects...

(which can sometimes feel almost as real as any object one might encounter outwardly)

...are not external to your mind.

No, they are created from the very essence and fabric of your personal being.

Indeed, if you (your inner “me”) did not exist, then neither would your dreams exist.

And that brings me right back to my original question of why you deny the existence of a “subjective” realm?

I am not an agent that creates thought.

Nonsense!

Close your eyes and create the image of a basketball before the eye of your mind. Now create the image of a golf ball circling around it like a moon orbiting a planet.

There, you have just created thought.
_______

[henry quirk]

I am not an agent that creates thought.

Say it ain't so, tap!

If you aren't the thinker, then who or what is?

[seeds]

phenom sez the apple on my table (as well as the table, the floor, etc.) is illusion.

tap sez the apple on my table (as well as the table, the floor, etc.) is real.

tap, of course, is right. The apple is real, exists independent of any observation, and -- when observed -- is pretty much as it appears to be.

Did you ever consider the possibility that both are right?
_______

[tapaticmadness]

Close your eyes and create the image of a basketball before the eye of your mind. Now create the image of a golf ball circling around it like a moon orbiting a planet.

There, you have just created thought.
_______

So you believe that the mind is an agent that has the power of creation. I think you have taken an idea and image from magic and mythology and tried to pawn it off as analysis.

Yes, I dream. The objects of my dreaming exist as dream objects. I didn’t create them. They are just there and I see/perceive them. The same goes for hallucinations, religious visions, misunderstandings, all imaginings. They exist. No mind created them.

Examine the word “create” and see if you can see anything there. I say, you can’t. "Create" is a word that means nothing. There is no thought there. And the fact that it used in popular philosophy only shows that popular philosophy rides of the wind.