Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[Skepdick]

I still am not clear: Do you think the Red Apple actually exists in the Physical Universe? Or do you think the Red Apple is only in your Mind?

Your questions are unclear. You are using the word "exists" in multiple senses. Do you think your mind actually exists in the Physical universe?

Your unclarity about my question is unclear to me. You say I used the work Exists in two different contexts when in fact I only used the word Exists one time.

You said "the Red Apple is only in your Mind", which I assumed means the same thing as "the Red Apple is only in your Mind"

If you meant something else, could you explain what the difference between "the apple IS" and "the apple EXISTS"?

[SteveKlinko]

Your questions are unclear. You are using the word "exists" in multiple senses. Do you think your mind actually exists in the Physical universe?

Your unclarity about my question is unclear to me. You say I used the work Exists in two different contexts when in fact I only used the word Exists one time.

You said "the Red Apple is only in your Mind", which I assumed means the same thing as "the Red Apple is only in your Mind"

If you meant something else, could you explain what the difference between "the apple IS" and "the apple EXISTS"?

You are out of context here: Saying "the Apple IS" is certainly a different thing than saying "the Apple is only in your Mind".

[Skepdick]

You are out of context here: Saying "the Apple IS" is certainly a different thing than saying "the Apple is only in your Mind".

OK, but that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that these two sentences mean exactly the same thing.
* The Apple is only in your Mind.
* The Apple exists only in your Mind.

And hence I am saying that the verbs "is" and "exists" are equivalent/synonymous/interchangeable therefore your original question can be re-written as follows for posterity:

"Do you think the Red Apple actually exists in the Physical Universe? Or do you think the Red Apple actually exists only in your Mind?"

That is how I read your sentence (even though that is not how you wrote it) which led me to ask you this yes/no question: You are using the word "exists" in multiple senses. Do you think your mind actually exists in the Physical universe?

[SteveKlinko]

You are out of context here: Saying "the Apple IS" is certainly a different thing than saying "the Apple is only in your Mind".

OK, but that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that these two sentences mean exactly the same thing.
* The Apple is only in your Mind.
* The Apple exists only in your Mind.

And hence I am saying that the verbs "is" and "exists" are equivalent/synonymous/interchangeable therefore your original question can be re-written as follows for posterity:

"Do you think the Red Apple actually exists in the Physical Universe? Or do you think the Red Apple actually exists only in your Mind?"

That is how I read your sentence (even though that is not how you wrote it) which led me to ask you this yes/no question: You are using the word "exists" in multiple senses. Do you think your mind actually exists in the Physical universe?

An Apple that Exists as a Physical thing in the Physical Universe is still different than an Apple that Exists only in the Mind, even if the Mind is in the Physical Universe. By the way, I am not sure the Mind Exists in the Physical Universe. The Mind could Exist in some Conscious Universe that is separate from the Physical Universe. There would of course need to be a Connection of some kind between the two Universes.

[Skepdick]

An Apple that Exists as a Physical thing in the Physical Universe is still different than an Apple that Exists only in the Mind, even if the Mind is in the Physical Universe.

That is how I understood it, which is precisely why I said....

Your questions are unclear. You are using the word "exists" in multiple senses.

By the way, I am not sure the Mind Exists in the Physical Universe. The Mind could Exist in some Conscious Universe that is separate from the Physical Universe. There would of course need to be a Connection of some kind between the two Universes.

Which is precisely the problem with using "exists" in multiple senses.

If there is ANY causal connection between your "two" universes - they are effectively a single universe.

[Dontaskme]

I still am not clear: Do you think the Red Apple actually exists in the Physical Universe? Or do you think the Red Apple is only in your Mind?

There is no 'your' mind or 'my' mind or 'our' mind in reality, words/language / knowledge are just concepts known by MIND which is emptiness void.

HERE NOW - NOWHERE is Absolute Reality.

NOW is just another word for AWARENESS which is just another word for INFINITY

INFINITY is infinite, eternal, and unchanging IS-ness. All that IS appears within it's emptiness. This is Absolute Reality.

The word 'physical' is just another concept known by emptiness/void/mind. The seer of all known concepts is the also the VOID which is all that IS.

A red apple is an object perceived by emptiness which in and of itself cannot be perceived of.
A red apple is perceived and that which is perceived cannot perceive itself. The read apple is inseparable from the perceiver which is the perceiving that cannot be perceived.

Therefore the apple does not exist outside of the perceived perception of it. The perceiver is Emptiness perceiving itself as an object known which is also empty because a perceived object does not exist outside the empty perceiver that is perceiving the object within itself, the object is known only to that which is perceiving it. Therefore, all manner of perceived 'things' are, in truth, 'no-things'. It is because of this natural impermanence of things that no appearance can be said to every actually be real. 'Things' are forever changing and shapeshifting from one form to another. It is only the eternal awareness that is real, which all appearances appear within.

In other words..Emptiness is real, apparently!!

No thing has never been seen for all things are looked upon as empty images within a seeing that cannot see or look at itself except as a known empty concept that knows nothing.

.

[SteveKlinko]

I still am not clear: Do you think the Red Apple actually exists in the Physical Universe? Or do you think the Red Apple is only in your Mind?

There is no 'your' mind or 'my' mind or 'our' mind in reality, words/language / knowledge are just concepts known by MIND which is emptiness void.

HERE NOW - NOWHERE is Absolute Reality.

NOW is just another word for AWARENESS which is just another word for INFINITY

INFINITY is infinite, eternal, and unchanging IS-ness. All that IS appears within it's emptiness. This is Absolute Reality.

The word 'physical' is just another concept known by emptiness/void/mind. The seer of all known concepts is the also the VOID which is all that IS.

A red apple is an object perceived by emptiness which in and of itself cannot be perceived of.
A red apple is perceived and that which is perceived cannot perceive itself. The read apple is inseparable from the perceiver which is the perceiving that cannot be perceived.

Therefore the apple does not exist outside of the perceived perception of it. The perceiver is Emptiness perceiving itself as an object known which is also empty because a perceived object does not exist outside the empty perceiver that is perceiving the object within itself, the object is known only to that which is perceiving it. Therefore, all manner of perceived 'things' are, in truth, 'no-things'. It is because of this natural impermanence of things that no appearance can be said to every actually be real. 'Things' are forever changing and shapeshifting from one form to another. It is only the eternal awareness that is real, which all appearances appear within.

In other words..Emptiness is real, apparently!!

No thing has never been seen for all things are looked upon as empty images within a seeing that cannot see or look at itself except as a known empty concept that knows nothing.

.

From your post I'm getting a No and then a Yes.

[SteveKlinko]

An Apple that Exists as a Physical thing in the Physical Universe is still different than an Apple that Exists only in the Mind, even if the Mind is in the Physical Universe.

That is how I understood it, which is precisely why I said....

Your questions are unclear. You are using the word "exists" in multiple senses.

By the way, I am not sure the Mind Exists in the Physical Universe. The Mind could Exist in some Conscious Universe that is separate from the Physical Universe. There would of course need to be a Connection of some kind between the two Universes.

Which is precisely the problem with using "exists" in multiple senses.

If there is ANY causal connection between your "two" universes - they are effectively a single universe.

What I tried to say in my last post was that Existence in the Physical Universe is different than Existence in the Conscious Universe. Exist does not always mean Physical Existence. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste Exist as Conscious Phenomena not Physical Phenomena. We don't understand these Conscious things yet but they obviously have an Existence in some Conscious Realm or Space.

[Skepdick]

What I tried to say in my last post was that Existence in the Physical Universe is different than Existence in the Conscious Universe. Exist does not always mean Physical Existence.

Which is PRECISELY the reason why I said: "You are using 'exists' in multiple senses"

Do you know what an equivocation is?

Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste Exist as Conscious Phenomena not Physical Phenomena.

You are equivocating 'existence' still.

We don't understand these Conscious things yet but they obviously have an Existence in some Conscious Realm or Space.

Which brings us right back to the first question which I asked you: Do you think your mind actually exists in the Physical universe?

As far as I am concerned there is only one realm of existence.

[SteveKlinko]

What I tried to say in my last post was that Existence in the Physical Universe is different than Existence in the Conscious Universe. Exist does not always mean Physical Existence.

Which is PRECISELY the reason why I said: "You are using 'exists' in multiple senses"

Do you know what an equivocation is?

Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste Exist as Conscious Phenomena not Physical Phenomena.

You are equivocating 'existence' still.

We don't understand these Conscious things yet but they obviously have an Existence in some Conscious Realm or Space.

Which brings us right back to the first question which I asked you: Do you think your mind actually exists in the Physical universe?

As far as I am concerned there is only one realm of existence.

So in your way of thinking, Exists always has to mean Physical Existence. Or are you saying that there are no other kinds of Existence than Physical Existences. You are just denying the 800lb Gorilla in the room by not acknowledging a separate Existence for Conscious Experiences. Conscious Experiences do not fit into any known Physical Process or Phenomenon. Is Redness a form of Energy, or is it a type of Matter, or is it some aspect of Space? If you are honest with yourself you will admit it is something quite different than any of these.

[Skepdick]

So in your way of thinking, Exists always has to mean Physical Existence. Or are you saying that there are no other kinds of Existence than Physical Existences. You are just denying the 800lb Gorilla in the room by not acknowledging a separate Existence for Conscious Experiences.

In my way of thinking, the moment you draw a hard line between two things, you face the problem of having to explain how they affect each other. Causality. How does physical reality affect consciousness? How does consciousness affect physical reality?

If you think separation is a 800lb gorilla, causality is a fucking blue whale in the middle of your lounge.

Conscious Experiences do not fit into any known Physical Process or Phenomenon. Is Redness a form of Energy, or is it a type of Matter, or is it some aspect of Space? If you are honest with yourself you will admit it is something quite different than any of these.

And if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that it is an effect resulting from a cause.

[SteveKlinko]

So in your way of thinking, Exists always has to mean Physical Existence. Or are you saying that there are no other kinds of Existence than Physical Existences. You are just denying the 800lb Gorilla in the room by not acknowledging a separate Existence for Conscious Experiences.

In my way of thinking, the moment you draw a hard line between two things, you face the problem of having to explain how they affect each other. Causality. How does physical reality affect consciousness? How does consciousness affect physical reality?

If you think separation is a 800lb gorilla, causality is a fucking blue whale in the middle of your lounge.

Conscious Experiences do not fit into any known Physical Process or Phenomenon. Is Redness a form of Energy, or is it a type of Matter, or is it some aspect of Space? If you are honest with yourself you will admit it is something quite different than any of these.

And if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that it is an effect resulting from a cause.

The two Realms obviously Exist as separate things and yes the question that arises is how do the two Realms interact. Now you understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You cannot get rid of the Hard Problem by denying the Existence of some sort of Conscious Realm or as I like to say Conscious Space. So is Redness a form of Energy, or is it a type of Matter, or is it some aspect of Space? If it is not one of these things then I think it is probably not something that is in the Physical World or it is at least some new concept of Physics. Redness … so familiar, yet so incomprehensible.

[Skepdick]

The two Realms obviously Exist as separate things

Obviously how?

the question that arises is how do the two Realms interact.

And yet the question arose, and you communicated it to me. Therefore causality is a fact.

Therefore the "separation of realms" is obviously falsified.

Now you understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I don't actually. What you are pointing out is the Impossible Problem of Cartesian Dualism.

Between Hard problems and Impossible problems - I know which one I prefer.

You cannot get rid of the Hard Problem by denying the Existence of some sort of Conscious Realm or as I like to say Conscious Space.

I am not denying consciousness. I am denying its separateness. I am rejecting any conception of the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" which also requires me to solve the "Hard Problem of Magical Causality".

Occam's razor.

So is Redness a form of Energy, or is it a type of Matter, or is it some aspect of Space? If it is not one of these things then I think it is probably not something that is in the Physical World or it is at least some new concept of Physics. Redness … so familiar, yet so incomprehensible.

Redness is a word. A Woo Woo word for quacks.

What the word describes is a phenomenon. A consequence. An effect. And you can't study that phenomenon without having to conquer self-reference.

What's self-reference? Well! We have a theory!

[Dontaskme]

From your post I'm getting a No and then a Yes.

Are you satified with that answer yes and no?

If a physical red apple does exist in a physical world, then can that red apple know it exists in a physical world?

[Dontaskme]

I am rejecting any conception of the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" which also requires me to solve the "Hard Problem of Magical Causality".

Reality is magical not logical.

.