Posted: Apr 14, 2012 4:56 pm
GrahamH wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:GrahamH wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a hammer.
'Explaining consciousness' isn't something that features in Idealism or theism. It is taken as an inexplicable given.
'Experience', then. The 'source' of 'experience', or, "Why is there something (to experience) rather than nothing?" It's full of metaphysics. These guys don't really have a very good idea of what it is they want to 'explain'.
Can't have 'experience' without 'consciousness'. It's circular, if you don't think about it too little or too much. If you think about it just right. Goldilocks philosophy.
They can't touch 'why is there something...' either. All they have is 'just because that happens to be god's nature, which is inexplicable'.
Why is there god? - no answer.
Why does an immaterial mind create a material world - no answer (unspecified great purpose assumed)
Why are we conscious? - because god just happens to be inexplicably conscious and gifts it to us.
'God' answers no question.
All answers are deferred for god to answer directly, which she can't do, obviously.
So; you have never heard any answer to these questions?