This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
SpeedOfSound wrote:Destroyer wrote:Regina wrote:Destroyer wrote:
The question is quite simple: Did your brain originate consciousness? You seem to be saying that no other explanation than brains are required. So please explain exactly how brains originated consciousness.
Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.
Neurology is not my area of research, so why should I come up with an explanation on that level? Start reading what I linked to. That approach works for me, as I said.
If you don't think your consciousness is a function your brain, then happy hunting in the big open spaces.
Neuroscience, unfortunately, will not help you in the knowledge that brains equate to consciousness. So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!
And you know this how? Please explain how you know this.
Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Destroyer wrote:
Neuroscience, unfortunately, will not help you in the knowledge that brains equate to consciousness. So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!
Regina wrote:Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?
Destroyer wrote:...
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
SpeedOfSound wrote:Destroyer wrote:...
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Oh really? Have you read the books? Do you have some knockout argument for why you don't have to be bothered with the books?
Or I you like another recent poster here who 'just knows... derp'?
Destroyer wrote:Regina wrote:Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?
Start by examing how 'one who behaves by deliberation before action', actually measures up to 'one who behaves by blind unconscious impulses' only. Then ask if the one who behaves by deliberation actually harmonizes with a universe that consists of nothing but blind signals; or whether that one has to pretend in order to harmoinze with that universe.
Regina wrote:Destroyer wrote:Regina wrote:Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?
Start by examing how 'one who behaves by deliberation before action', actually measures up to 'one who behaves by blind unconscious impulses' only. Then ask if the one who behaves by deliberation actually harmonizes with a universe that consists of nothing but blind signals; or whether that one has to pretend in order to harmoinze with that universe.
What exactly are blind signals?
On what basis does the one who behaves by deliberation act, according to your philosophy? And how do you distinguish the two types, meaning, how exactly do you examine? How do you get your data? I mean in practical terms. What is the set up of the experiment?
Little Idiot wrote:asdfjkl wrote:ok my idea that since it's self evident that self evident things exist it is also self evident that non-self evident things don't exist.
Thats simply a logical error.
If every A is B, then every not-A is not B may seem fair enough on first glance.
in asdfjkl's case A= self evident thing, B= exist.
But that cant work with exist, because exist is not a category of things which excludes other things - or in other words, all things exist, because things in this context means 'things which exist'.
Every cat is feline, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs are feline. - Thats fine.
And its fine because feline is defined as being 'only cats'.
Every cat exists, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs exist. - Thats clearly rubbish. And its rubbish because exists is not defined as being 'only cats'.
Destroyer wrote:
Ask Cito what blind signals are? I do believe that he is a scientist.
If you do not have any awareness of one who behaves by deliberation then so be it. If you are not aware of how there is a distinction between blind impulses and deliberation, again, so be it.
You either examine the behaviour of the consciousness associated with your own brain, or you continue to read books and believe in foolishness. The choice is yours.
Regina wrote:Destroyer wrote:
Ask Cito what blind signals are? I do believe that he is a scientist.
If you do not have any awareness of one who behaves by deliberation then so be it. If you are not aware of how there is a distinction between blind impulses and deliberation, again, so be it.
You either examine the behaviour of the consciousness associated with your own brain, or you continue to read books and believe in foolishness. The choice is yours.
You can't explain the words you use?
I'm not talking about my anecdotal experience of how people behave. I'm talking of the application of the scientific method.
I don't believe in anything. I know, or don't know, sometimes I assume, or hope or fear. I don't believe.
So are you going to answer my questions or not?
Regina wrote:Not necessary.My consciousness doesn't need telling.
asdfjkl wrote:ok awhile ago i was asking whether existence=self-evidence.
the main reason why i might think it is is this:
the only thing that is self evident is the self (and its perceptions of course)
these things we can perceive directly, ie there is no doubt that they exist.
now it seems to me that existence=direct perception (=self evidence)
it seems that just like you're certain these things exist you should be certain nothing else does.
anyone else think this way or are you non solipsist?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest