Because I hear and read constant reports, and because it makes sense to me, I tend to think that there is life after death, on an individual basis. In a sense; the personal self as we usually experience it is an illusion. We are not the personality adapted to society; we are not separate from our environment, but we are the whole. There is no such thing as an entity called a soul. And yet, we are individuals, on an authentic level. There are other planes of existence more subtle than this one, according to many accounts from folks who have been there and back and/or remember and communicate there. That is as good evidence as any empirical study, which can never be complete, and therefore is not truth, but only factual evidence as well as can be determined. If we each are a unique hologram of the whole, like a fractile of God, then we are individuals, evolving in our experience and growth and able to remember our past and interlife experiences and learn from them. The Buddhists know this; what they refer to as an illusion is this separate, social personality that we are usually caught up in. It makes sense to be open to the possibilities of this, and to spirituality in general. Only spirituality in a general sense provides truth, as opposed to mere evidence.

If you have a cynical and negative view of reality, it is largely because of your world view. Be open to evidence and experience, and your life is then more meaningful and interesting. And in any case, these matters are beyond your personal control; so accept and "roll with" what happens. And as Socrates said, it is as important to prepare for death as for life. Accepting death is important as a way of overcoming fear. Accepting an afterlife is as virtuous as accepting death in every way. To fear physical death makes no sense, whether you die and that's it, or whether you go on. If you exist as an individual, then there is no need to hang on to what is there anyway; if you don't; there's nothing to hang onto. Knowledge or belief in an afterlife does not diminish the priority of this life; if you are an eternal hologram of God, then you cannot escape the consequences of everything you do in this life on Earth.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Find me a philosophical zombie and then we can test if it cognates.

Gad, you are just completely missing the point here.

Whether philosophical zombies actually exist is completely irrelevant. What makes a difference is that if they do, there's no way we could tell.

Philosophers, in my opinion, get confused about what the point of philosophy is. Philosophers pose questions that can't be answered, and then pretend to find answers. Instead, what's useful about philosophy is to point out which questions can't be answered, and which ones we might be assuming answers to without evidence.

The value of the philosophical zombie concept is that it shows us the non-phenomenal nature of consciousness, from which certain things necessarily follow. They don't have to actually exist to show us that. All that's necessary is that we be unable to prove that they don't. If consciousness were a phenomenon, we could prove that they don't, by examining all human beings and observing their consciousness in action. Since we can't, consciousness is a non-phenomenon.

Since it's a non-phenomenon, it can't have a material cause. (Or a non-material cause, either.) Either it does not exist (which we are unable to believe), or it is an uncaused reality. The latter is the case. And since it is uncaused, it cannot, therefore, arise from the brain. Q.E.D.

I may not. I do know that I objectively exist. After all the subjective experience of consciousness may just be some great big mind tick I'm playing on myself after all.

You cannot be wrong about experiencing reality. You can be wrong about the nature of the reality you experience (and we often are), but that you experience it -- or at least, that experience happens -- is impossible to make a mistake about. The only sense in which "your" consciousness could be "some big mind trick" is that you could be wrong about exactly who or what is experiencing things, and in fact I believe that is the case. But that experience is happening, no, that cannot be an illusion.

One is ludicrous the other valid. The universe obviously existed prior to humans did so why should it not continue on objectively without us being present?

Was the universe "obviously" in existence before -- not just humans, but all life? Let's construct the epistemic order of events.

1) People experience reality.
2) Regularities are observed in the reality experienced, both from observer to observer and from event to event.
3) Models and theories are constructed to allow predictions based on these regularities.
4) A world pre-existing #1 is consistent with these models and theories.

So really, the only evidence we have that the universe preceded us is a set of mathematical equations and scientific models that we created based on regularities found in subjective experience. It's a fourth-level extrapolation from the primary data, and the subjective experience came first in terms of causation.

In terms of epistemic causation, the world does not precede us even if it does precede us in time, and even if it precedes us in time we have no way to know that it does so in any form that we would recognize. The objective existence of the world is an assumption not only without evidence but without even the possibility of evidence, since (once again) we would have to observe the world when no one is observing it to know one way or the other.

Again, the point here is not to answer the question. The question can't be answered: we have no way to determine whether the world exists objectively or not. The point is to recognize that that is the case. Once we do, we are freed from a particular illusion, and able to use the idea of objective reality where it is useful (as it often is), without being bound and limited by it.

I know what other people say spirituality is, but I've yet to determine what it is apart from superstition and have yet to see a reason to need it.

The problem here is that genuine spirituality involves realities for which our language has no words, and which cannot be conveyed in words because people have no memories of experiences for the words to point to. So no one who knows can tell you, and unfortunately that includes me. The Buddha actually came pretty close, but by the same token his teachings are really hard to understand. Jesus didn't even try; he taught in metaphors (or "parables" as Christians call them) and you have to have some prior understanding to get what he was talking about.

Either you have these experiences or you don't. On the other hand, it seems to me that one of two attitudes towards God or gods -- to believe in them as literal reality or to emphatically disbelieve in them and in either case to lock your mind up -- is a good barrier to ever having genuine spiritual experience. The doctrinaire religious and atheists look from my perspective like two sides of the same coin.

As with philosophy, the beneficial thing here is not to take in knowledge but to recognize that what one thinks one know -- one really doesn't.

While I'm here, let me toss out another little thought experiment.

Having established that consciousness is a non-phenomenon, let's assume, arguendo, that it is an individual reality -- that there is such a thing as my consciousness, your consciousness, and Eric's consciousness. You are at this moment experiencing reality from the point of view of your consciousness. We could say that your "I-ness," if you will, is centered on Kinser, and not on Brian or on Eric.

Now, imagine that your I-ness plays musical chairs with mine and Eric's. Let's say that, five minutes ago, the I-ness that is currently in Kinser was in me, the one currently in me was in Eric, and the one currently in Eric was in you. Then they jumped to their current positions.

Given that memory, unlike consciousness, is certainly and demonstrably a function of the brain and therefore specific to you, me, or Eric and not transferable, so that at this moment you have all of Kinser's memories and none of mine -- including the memories of the time when your current I-ness was in me -- what test can be performed to show that we are not undergoing this kind of I-ness musical chairs all the time?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Find me a philosophical zombie and then we can test if it cognates.

<Enter Prince; Stage Right>



<Audience Applause>

Prince

PS:!

Gad, you are just completely missing the point here.

Actually Brian, I think it would be a mistake to assume that I'm missing your points. There is always the possibility that I understand completely what you're saying—I'm simply being contrary.

Philosophers pose questions that can't be answered, and then pretend to find answers. Instead, what's useful about philosophy is to point out which questions can't be answered, and which ones we might be assuming answers to without evidence.

Agreed. Which is why I think that consciousness as a non-phenomena may be a bit presumptuous. This of course assumes though that consciousness exists in and of itself and is not an illusion created by our complex nervous systems.


Answering a question as being unknowable is still an answer is it not?

Either it does not exist (which we are unable to believe), or it is an uncaused reality. The latter is the case. And since it is uncaused, it cannot, therefore, arise from the brain. Q.E.D.

Assuming that consciousness does not in fact exist is actually more believable than that consciousness is an uncaused reality. Rather consciousness seems to be completely limited to organisms with complex central nervous systems and there for either arises from those nervous systems or may not exist at all.


As someone who does adhere to science in most aspects, I find an uncaused cause more absurd than something not existing, or even something that cannot be detected easily existing.

You cannot be wrong about experiencing reality. You can be wrong about the nature of the reality you experience (and we often are), but that you experience it -- or at least, that experience happens -- is impossible to make a mistake about. The only sense in which "your" consciousness could be "some big mind trick" is that you could be wrong about exactly who or what is experiencing things, and in fact I believe that is the case. But that experience is happening, no, that cannot be an illusion.

That is a lot of words to say just about nothing. Either consciousness is real, and therefore has a cause, or it does not exist and therefore can have no cause due to its non-existance.


If your position is that consciousness is both uncaused and also a non-phenomena then perhaps we need to explore what other non-phenomena exist and how they can be explored by empirical observation. Otherwise, we are really talking about nothing and this whole conversation has been meaningless. Which it probably is anyway—most philosophy is bullshit.

Was the universe "obviously" in existence before -- not just humans, but all life? Let's construct the epistemic order of events.

1) People experience reality.
2) Regularities are observed in the reality experienced, both from observer to observer and from event to event.
3) Models and theories are constructed to allow predictions based on these regularities.
4) A world pre-existing #1 is consistent with these models and theories.

So really, the only evidence we have that the universe preceded us is a set of mathematical equations and scientific models that we created based on regularities found in subjective experience. It's a fourth-level extrapolation from the primary data, and the subjective experience came first in terms of causation.

In terms of epistemic causation, the world does not precede us even if it does precede us in time, and even if it precedes us in time we have no way to know that it does so in any form that we would recognize. The objective existence of the world is an assumption not only without evidence but without even the possibility of evidence, since (once again) we would have to observe the world when no one is observing it to know one way or the other.

Again, the point here is not to answer the question. The question can't be answered: we have no way to determine whether the world exists objectively or not. The point is to recognize that that is the case. Once we do, we are freed from a particular illusion, and able to use the idea of objective reality where it is useful (as it often is), without being bound and limited by it.

Again many paragraphs to say nothing.


The universe had to exist before humans so that at a later point we could mathematically determine that it did.


Furthermore yes the world does exist objectively. I'm pretty sure that the photographs of the planet from outer space are sufficient evidence of its objective existence.


Seriously Brian it seems that it is you rather than I who needs to question their views as these paragraphs smell of woo woo bullshit.

The doctrinaire religious and atheists look from my perspective like two sides of the same coin.

What an absurd position. Either one believes in cosmic dicators or they do not. It is really simple. Either one believes that this (or these) beings are the one (or several) true supernatural sky daddies (or mommies as the case may be) or one denies the existence of all of it in its entirety.


Does atheism “lock-up” one from having a “spiritual” experience? I honestly don't know. I know of a few atheists who are superstitious though not in the religious sense—they believe other absurd things like George W. Bush was behind 9-11 for example.


That said they are not two sides of the same coin. Atheism is a lack of belief—which does not have to be active.


http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

Having established that consciousness is a non-phenomenon, let's assume, arguendo, that it is an individual reality -- that there is such a thing as my consciousness, your consciousness, and Eric's consciousness. You are at this moment experiencing reality from the point of view of your consciousness. We could say that your "I-ness," if you will, is centered on Kinser, and not on Brian or on Eric.

Now, imagine that your I-ness plays musical chairs with mine and Eric's. Let's say that, five minutes ago, the I-ness that is currently in Kinser was in me, the one currently in me was in Eric, and the one currently in Eric was in you. Then they jumped to their current positions.

Given that memory, unlike consciousness, is certainly and demonstrably a function of the brain and therefore specific to you, me, or Eric and not transferable, so that at this moment you have all of Kinser's memories and none of mine -- including the memories of the time when your current I-ness was in me -- what test can be performed to show that we are not undergoing this kind of I-ness musical chairs all the time?

I would say your thought-experiment is completely absurd.


After exploring the topic of my own consciousness for some 33+ years now Brian I can assure you that this “I-ness” cannot play musical chairs. It is in fact kept in my body. It cannot leave my body, and even if it could why would I want it too.


In any event the only thing I can conclude is whatever your theories are on consciousness they must be absolutely wrong. I say this because at the end of the day you still have to resort to woo woo theories to attribute consciousness a permanence and universality that it simply lacks.


If consciousness is the subjective experience of existence as known by a human, then it must be individual. My experiences cannot be transferred to an other person. I can tell someone about my experience—but that is not the same as experiencing it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Assuming that consciousness does not in fact exist is actually more believable than that consciousness is an uncaused reality.

I'm reminded of a Zen student who came to the master in great excitement. "Master," he said, "I understand now! None of this exists!"

"Hmm," the master said. "So your body, does that exist?"

"No, master," the student said, "my body does not exist."

"And that means your nose in particular, your nose does not exist?"

"That's right, master," said the student proudly, "my nose does not exist!"

On hearing this, the master immediately drew back his fist and struck the student a mighty blow right in the schnoz.

"What hurts?" he asked mildly.

No matter how logical it may be to think that consciousness doesn't exist, we are unable to actually believe that.

If your position is that consciousness is both uncaused and also a non-phenomena then perhaps we need to explore what other non-phenomena exist and how they can be explored by empirical observation.

The only other non-phenomenon I'm aware of is the universe as a whole. By definition, it isn't possible to explore non-phenomena by empirical observation; if we could do that, they would be phenomena. We know that consciousness is real only because of subjective experience from within, which while empirical is not observation. We know the universe exists only because it is mathematically absurd for the parts to exist but not the whole.

Again many paragraphs to say nothing.

LOL again, "I, even I, have looked and seen it not."

Whoever has an ear, let him hear. Whoever does not, do not mistake your own deafness for silence.

The universe had to exist before humans so that at a later point we could mathematically determine that it did.

No, there's no logical necessity of that at all.

Furthermore yes the world does exist objectively. I'm pretty sure that the photographs of the planet from outer space are sufficient evidence of its objective existence.

No, they're only evidence that our experience includes the ability to take pictures of the planet from space. There's really no way around the fact that the question can't be answered.

What an absurd position. Either one believes in cosmic dicators or they do not. It is really simple.

If you delude yourself that the existence or nonexistence of cosmic dictators is the only important question, then it certainly becomes simple.

Spiritual experience and the truths it teaches exist.

"God" is a metaphor for some of those truths.

The doctrinaire religious believes that "God" literally exists and takes a particular form that his doctrine requires, thinks he has answered all relevant spiritual questions, and closes his mind.

The atheist accepts the word of the doctrinaire religious that the literal existence of "God" and the truth of his own doctrine binds up all relevant spiritual questions, rejects the literal existence of "God," and closes his mind.

Two sides of the same coin, as I said.

Does atheism “lock-up” one from having a “spiritual” experience? I honestly don't know. I know of a few atheists who are superstitious though not in the religious sense—they believe other absurd things like George W. Bush was behind 9-11 for example.

Superstition, as I've been trying to tell you, has nothing to do with spirituality.

Actually there have been atheists who have had spiritual experiences, the Buddha being the most famous example but there are others, so no, the lock-down isn't perfect. It isn't for the doctrinaire religious, either. But it's inherently limiting to think you already know about something you've never experienced, either because some hoary old sacred book has spoon-fed you the answers or because you've seen through that particular crap.

After exploring the topic of my own consciousness for some 33+ years now Brian I can assure you that this “I-ness” cannot play musical chairs.
It is in fact kept in my body. It cannot leave my body, and even if it could why would I want it too.

No, you can't assure me of that. All you can assure me is that you remember being in your body for 33+ years, just as I remember being in mine for 56 years (aside from out-of-body experiences and that's not what I'm talking about here). But since memory is a function of the brain, and the brain does not shift bodies, you'd remember being in that one for 33 years even if you actually hadn't. You could have been me for 56 years, and then on my 56th birthday for some mysterious reason become you. Since all my memories are in my brain, you would no longer have access to them and so would no longer remember being me. Since all your memories are in your brain, you would now remember having been you for 33 years.

How can you be sure that this isn't happening all the time?

I ask this sort of question to show that many of the things we assume about consciousness and about our own identities have no basis in known fact.

I ran into this hilarious Deepak Chopra quote generator.

Self-evident truth: Everything is everything. Everything is the universe as a whole. As many philosophies point out, there is no essential difference between self and other, phenomena and noumena. That means everything is consciousness, and nothing can be known by the scientific method, according to Brian's formula.

Consciousness is space, experienced from within.

Although everything is everything, there are two provisos to this. Everything can be considered as if it were a part of the whole rather than the whole. As such, it can be studied scientifically as phenomena, and it is useful to do so. However, it should not be assumed that such a "part" actually exists as such, and therefore, it should not be assumed that scientific knowledge of this part is comprehensive. It is merely provisional and limited, and other ways of knowing can add to our knowledge about such parts, even if such knowledge is not factual. There are no parts that exist apart from the whole. There are no parts that are mutually external to one another, and no "matter" that "occupies space;" all parts interpenetrate, all parts are connected to each other and the whole, and all parts change. Only the whole as whole, and eternal principles concerning it, do not change. Change and time are required for life. All "things" (or parts) also exist in the eternal, unchanging now.

Some of these parts are human individuals who experience themselves as such. The same limitations apply to the study of individuals. The universe manifests itself as individuals, from atoms to Adams, cells to selves (or souls). These individuals are holograms of the whole. That means the whole can be seen or experienced in any part of the whole.

And I guess it has to be said once more: That which is everything is nothing in particular. As long as we are talking about something in particular, we aren't talking about everything, and so none of what I've said here applies. In that case, assuming we're asking factual questions about that something in particular, we're in the domain of science. Deal with it.

No matter how logical it may be to think that consciousness doesn't exist, we are unable to actually believe that.

I think you're missing my point. It is easier, more logical to think that consciousness does not exist than it is that it is universal and shifting and all manner of other things you've ascribed to consciousness which I have not.

We know that consciousness is real only because of subjective experience from within, which while empirical is not observation. We know the universe exists only because it is mathematically absurd for the parts to exist but not the whole.

I would say that the mathematical absurdity of parts of a universe existing without a whole is also empirical.


What I'm asking for is empirical evidence that consciousness is shifting, changing exists in less complex organisms or even inanimate objects. All of these are claims that have been made besides the recognition of individual, discrete consciousness of a single human being. As such these claims must require evidence of some form other than purely subjective evidence.


Without such evidence the two of us will be locked into a circular argument with no answer. I think you know this Brian. While it may amuse you I will eventually get bored and stop the argument though.

No, there's no logical necessity of that at all.

Perhaps not in purely logical sense, but given our scientific knowledge of the Universe it is a necessity.


Science > Pure Logic

No, they're only evidence that our experience includes the ability to take pictures of the planet from space. There's really no way around the fact that the question can't be answered.

If you cannot see how absurd such a view is perhaps you should re-examine your Zen Master argument you pushed at me.

Spiritual experience and the truths it teaches exist

Then these truths must be a third uncaused cause, or they must have a cause and evidence. I have no reason to believe in any uncaused cause, and have evidence for two—the universe and my personal consciousness. Outside of this do not expect me to be believe shit without someone presenting actual evidence.

The atheist accepts the word of the doctrinaire religious that the literal existence of "God" and the truth of his own doctrine binds up all relevant spiritual questions, rejects the literal existence of "God," and closes his mind.

That is a rather unnecessarily complex view of atheism and what it is and does.


A theist makes a statement about god(s). An atheist demands proof of such. The theist cannot produce proof and the atheist comes away thinking the theist if full of shit and rejects their position.


Religion requires a positive belief in something. Atheism does not require a positive or negative belief in anything. It is literally A- (greek prefix meaning “without) and -theos (greek root word meaning god).


As such religion and atheism are not two sides of the same coin. They are two different coins all together.


Again...


If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.


If Atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color.

Superstition, as I've been trying to tell you, has nothing to do with spirituality.

What you've been trying to tell me is absolute rubbish then. Spirituality is superstition. Only one self-deluded enough to believe that they have had a “spiritual” experience has ever had spirituality unless of course they are gullible enough to read some desert scribblings and then proclaim that to be ultimate truth.

No, you can't assure me of that.

So you are actively believing then in the superstition that consciousness is not limited to one's own experience subjectively. Fine by me. Just don't expect me to believe it.

aside from out-of-body experiences and that's not what I'm talking about here

An out-of-body experience is not spiritual in the least and offers us no insight into consciousness either. Epileptics have them when they have a seizure and diabetics when they have an insulin reaction. I know from experience on the latter, and from being told on the former.


As such an out-of-body experience must be a hallucination caused by the separation of the brain's processing capacity from the sensory systems as happens in both insulin reactions and epileptic seizures.


Furthermore, if my consciousness cannot leave my body I have no reason to believe that anyone else's consciousness can leave their body either. There simply is no consciousness musical-chairs.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Was the universe "obviously" in existence before -- not just humans, but all life? Let's construct the epistemic order of events.

1) People experience reality.
2) Regularities are observed in the reality experienced, both from observer to observer and from event to event.
3) Models and theories are constructed to allow predictions based on these regularities.
4) A world pre-existing #1 is consistent with these models and theories.

Or, we could skip the philosopher's word games and go out and directly observe the universe of the past. They're called telescopes.

So really, the only evidence we have that the universe preceded us is a set of mathematical equations and scientific models that we created based on regularities found in subjective experience. It's a fourth-level extrapolation from the primary data, and the subjective experience came first in terms of causation.

That's what comes of listening to people who don't really know the science. The universe of the past is primary data. It pours into telescopes, antennas, and eyeballs every day.

The only rejoinder of the philosopher is to go on and claim that reality is only a figment. When you ask them for an example of some observations that are in fact primary in their view, you get a rapid change of subject.

The more of Brian's "reasoning" I read, the even more I become less impressed with philosophy as a tool for learning.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Or, we could skip the philosopher's word games and go out and directly observe the universe of the past. They're called telescopes.



That's what comes of listening to people who don't really know the science. The universe of the past is primary data. It pours into telescopes, antennas, and eyeballs every day.

The only rejoinder of the philosopher is to go on and claim that reality is only a figment. When you ask them for an example of some observations that are in fact primary in their view, you get a rapid change of subject.

The more of Brian's "reasoning" I read, the even more I become less impressed with philosophy as a tool for learning.

As a Popperian Falsificationist, I do not think Brian's "4th-level extrapolation" comment is relavent. hypotheses come before data, the data is merely a way to test hypotheses. The information that results from trying to falsify a hypothesis is the source of objective knowledge, not the sense data.

Those who do not understand that consciousness extends beyond their own discreet individual consciousness, and can't experience or perceive it in others, are simply not conscious enough. Logic will not avail as proof or disproof of such an experience.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Or, we could skip the philosopher's word games and go out and directly observe the universe of the past. They're called telescopes.

No good. You have to assume the conclusion before that can suffice as evidence. You're still not observing the universe when no one is observing it, and that's what you need to do.

The only rejoinder of the philosopher is to go on and claim that reality is only a figment.

That's not what I'm claiming. Anyone claiming that reality is only a figment is making the same mistake you are: asserting an answer to a question that can't be answered.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I think you're missing my point. It is easier, more logical to think that consciousness does not exist than it is that it is universal and shifting and all manner of other things you've ascribed to consciousness which I have not.

Except that that doesn't describe our choices. We are literally UNABLE to believe that consciousness doesn't exist, so that should be removed form the table. It's not an option. It's still useful to recognize that as far as scientific method is concerned consciousness might as well not exist. That however doesn't mean it actually doesn't.

I would say that the mathematical absurdity of parts of a universe existing without a whole is also empirical.

Nevertheless, we still can't observe the whole universe, and the only conclusion we can make about it on that mathematical basis is that it exists.

What I'm asking for is empirical evidence that consciousness is shifting

Why, when that's not what I'm asserting? All I'm saying in regard to the musical-chairs-consciousness idea is that we have no way to know that it isn't happening. That inability is itself important. Whether consciousness is, in fact, jumping from body to body is NOT. In this respect, it's just like the philosophical zombie idea. It's unimportant whether philosophical zombies actually exist. What's important is that we have no test to prove that they don't.

That doesn't mean that they do. But it does mean that consciousness is a non-phenomenon.

Perhaps not in purely logical sense, but given our scientific knowledge of the Universe it [pre-existence of the universe] is a necessity.

Why?

Then these truths must be a third uncaused cause, or they must have a cause and evidence.

No, actually they're all about the universe as a whole and consciousness.

A theist makes a statement about god(s). An atheist demands proof of such. The theist cannot produce proof and the atheist comes away thinking the theist if full of shit and rejects their position.

Nah, that's just what the atheist tells himself afterward to make himself feel good. In fact, it's largely an emotional reaction: doctrinaire religion tries to force itself on young person, young person rebels, rejects doctrinaire religion, becomes atheist, and thereafter also rejects anything remotely resembling doctrinaire religion in any way in full knee-jerk mode.

If you were really being rational about all this, you would reject only the assertions of theists properly so called and not confuse them with their fifth cousins twice removed.

If Atheism is a religion

I'm not saying atheism is a religion. I'm saying that doctrinaire religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin.

What you've been trying to tell me is absolute rubbish then. Spirituality is superstition.

Sorry, but the reality on the ground here is that I know what spirituality is and you don't have a clue. You're flat wrong and, on this subject, utterly ignorant. Which is fine -- most people are -- but you should stop deceiving yourself that you know what you're talking about. You don't.

So you are actively believing then in the superstition that consciousness is not limited to one's own experience subjectively.

Nope. I'm actively believing in the perfectly rational observation that consciousness is one thing, memory another, and you are relying here on memory only. Memories can be false -- I think you know that.

An out-of-body experience is not spiritual in the least

Stop those jerking knees, please. I already said OBE is not what I'm talking about here.

Kinser is an interesting case; very wise in political/social matters and yet narrowly, stubbornly dogmatic in philosophy. I would surmise that his main philosophical motivation is his Marxism. Many socialists and Marxists have the idea that materialism is necessary to their political ideals. And it is true that Marx made a great contribution to our understanding of society and history. I have heard references to "pre-Marxist" historians, which are those who looked at history only in terms of what some political leaders decided; things like wars and battles and laws that were decreed; or even more recently, history as elections and fights between political factions. Marx realized and taught us that history was "a history of class struggles." Since his contribution, we know that one's economic position in society is influential in how you vote, and that class is an important factor in social changes.

For example, it was not just the politicians who decided to overthrow the kings in the Revolutions; it was the work of the bourgeoisie, who wanted more economic freedom from the aristocrats. The next step would be the rising power of the working class. Therefore it was important to many Marxists to focus on one's economic class as a decisive influence and motivation in everything else that you do; what kind of music you like, what religion you belong to, etc. It is also important to focus on the inevitable influence of one's economic and material condition in order to be concerned about improving it, rather than think God has decreed one's condition, or that individuals must empower themselves through spiritual work, self-improvement, character-building, positive thinking, or other kinds of bootstrap-pulling. Furthermore, the Marxists wanted to convince us that the next revolution was inevitable; that his economic-determinist philosophy was a "science" of understanding how the class struggle would necessarily lead to the change in power that they wanted. All this has lead Marx and many Marxists to adopt a materialist philosophy of economic determinism and scientific materialism.

I suspect that this is one reason why many Marxists and socialists are so committed to materialism. It is not necessary, though. Of course, not all materialists are Marxists or even liberals; many are libertarian-leaning, e.g. our own Copperfield or Justin. And the reverse is definitely true; there is a great tradition of the spiritual left. Those who use liberation theology as a tool for social change is one example. Another is the fact that the black civil rights leaders were almost-entirely spiritualists and believers. Martin Luther King Jr. in particular was focused on the plight of the poor and how to raise them up by giving them more economic power, and by shifting the priorities of politics toward economic improvement for blacks and other poor people. Listen to his speeches especially from 1966 on to hear this, as well as consider that he organized the poor peoples' march in 1968. Malcolm X was a Muslim minister. And so on.

Spiritualism is actually a better basis for a liberal or socialist view; and in fact I rather think it is a necessary basis for it, and it is one reason why I am a spiritualist. Unless you go past materialist determinism, there is no basis for the idea that people can have an ideal and bring it into being. This is not only true individually, but collectively too. To have compassion for others, as the Buddhists and Christians teach, it is necessary to see others as you see yourself, as a divine being and a "soul" with the miracle of life, not as a physical automaton that can be used like a material thing for others' economic purposes. It is also necessary to see that spirituality rather than economic improvement is the purpose of life, and that it is material greed that motivates those in the upper class who oppress us. All in all, spiritualism is a much better basis for liberalism than materialism is. So there's no need for liberals or Marxists to hang onto materialism in the face of all evidence and reason, as they so often do.

How many times do you have to be told that "Argument by Consequences" is a fallacy, Eric? It does not matter if a statement is a better basis for political beliefs or not, what matters is if it is TRUE or not.

Originally Posted by Odin

How many times do you have to be told that "Argument by Consequences" is a fallacy, Eric? It does not matter if a statement is a better basis for political beliefs or not, what matters is if it is TRUE or not.

Except that truth is not always the motivation why people hold the philosophy and world view that they do.

Argument by consequences is not a fallacy, if spiritualism is true. What you have in your mind and heart, influences events in your life.

One confusion that keeps arising in this discussion is one I should expect. When we ask a question, we expect there to be an answer, even if we can't determine it. It's difficult to accept that there really isn't one.

A good example here is the question of realism versus idealism. Is the material universe objectively real, existing independently of our observation of it? Or is it an illusion crafted by or for our consciousness?

To demonstrate that either of these answers to the question is true, we would have to observe reality when no one is observing it ("when" meaning "under the circumstance that," not "at the same time as"). That's impossible -- it's self-contradictory and simply can't be done, ever.

In a parallel perhaps to two-party thinking, if I present this argument to a realist such as Kinser or Vandal, they jump to the response that I'm arguing in favor of idealism, while if I present it to an idealist like Eric, the assumption is that I'm arguing in favor of realism. In actuality, I'm arguing in favor of neither position.

What I'm saying is that, when it is in principle impossible to perform a test that could distinguish between two alternatives, neither alternative is either true or false. Nor is the answer "I don't know," because that implies there is an answer to be found but that it's beyond our current capabilities or information. In this case, there is NOT an answer to be found. We cannot disprove either of these claims about the ultimate nature of reality, and we never will be able to, because in order to do so we would have to do the self-contradictory and inherently impossible.

And so, like the probability cloud that represents a particle's position before a measurement is taken, the world is in a limbo of is and is not, both at once and neither being true. We are free to operate on either assumption, whichever is convenient for a given purpose, secure in the knowledge that we will never encounter evidence that disproves it, because no such evidence is possible.

For most everyday purposes, I prefer the realist assumption. That's definitely the case with science, and with most aspects of practical life. When writing fiction or doing magic, I might shade a bit over towards the idealist side, and with mysticism and spirituality I go all the way over to idealism. But in operating from a realist perspective, I'm not rejecting idealism, and when I move over to idealism I'm not rejecting realism, because I know that neither one can ever be proven wrong. And so neither one is true, and neither one is false, and never will be.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What I'm saying is that, when it is in principle impossible to perform a test that could distinguish between two alternatives, neither alternative is either true or false. Nor is the answer "I don't know," because that implies there is an answer to be found but that it's beyond our current capabilities or information. In this case, there is NOT an answer to be found. We cannot disprove either of these claims about the ultimate nature of reality, and we never will be able to, because in order to do so we would have to do the self-contradictory and inherently impossible.

I don't know. At this point Eric has not yet achieved exhaulted mastery. Once he masters the art of clapping with one hand, might he be able to do the inherently impossible?

I mean, he has already mastered self contradiction, has he not?

Sorry. Couldn't resist...

Originally Posted by B Butler

I don't know. At this point Eric has not yet achieved exalted mastery. Once he masters the art of clapping with one hand, might he be able to do the inherently impossible?

I mean, he has already mastered self contradiction, has he not?

Sorry. Couldn't resist...

Actually it seems to me that Brian is arguing for idealism, not as he assumes I would say, for realism. The point is, as Bob's favorite philosopher proved, nothing exists except in a mind. So it is not the case that there is no answer; that IS the answer. Whether we say that means the world is "an illusion" or not, is beside the point; that is a "realist's" exaggeration of the implication. Nor does it prove that this "illusion" is crafted for "our" consciousness alone. There is no implication in Berkeley's proof that everything is in "my" personal mind. Remember, what I can't observe, according to Berkeley, God observes. In other words, the greater mind of the universe, the one mind, the mystical mind. Or, you don't even have to go that far; you can just say, other minds can observe what I can't.

It is not the case, as Brian concludes, that there is no answer to this question, or that the issue doesn't "matter." The whole universe is built on the mind-matter polarity (and also the male-female or yin/yang polarity). So although I am an "idealist," I am also "holistic" and conceive all world views including realism and materialism as having a place on the "philosophers wheel." Therefore, "realism" has its place too. In other words, there are "others," even if at bottom everything is "mind." Specifically, not only do all objects exist only in a mind, minds depend on there being objects to observe. A consciousness with no objects, is not conscious of anything. So it is not so much that the answer can't be found, but that indeed the answer is contradictory, or as I prefer to say, polar. Mutual-dependency is a basic idea in Eastern thought, and Eastern thought is superior to the Western logic of non-contradiction. It is, as we say, a win-win solution. Mastery indeed.

Did the universe exist before humans observed it? There are several answers to this question, none of which will be acceptable to our materialists here.

First, an electric current doesn't flow without a destination. In the same way, the universe comes into being because it is now coming into being in our consciousness; it's destination is already hooked up. Creation means attraction to the omega point-- the end point of the current, the highest possible destination, the divine itself. The universe is like a sunflower.

Second, consciousness does not exist in humans as a fluke; it arises from an intelligent universe. So consciousness is there all along the entire evolution of the universe, in rudimentary form.

Third, since there is no such thing as matter, and everything is mind anyway, or as physicists call it, energy, it always exists within this greater universal mind, which is your real identity in spite of individuality also existing. This mind that you are exists now; now is the only time there can be. As scientists like Hawking say, the big bang must have had no cause. That which has no cause, is by definition mind or soul. It arises spontaneously and freely. You, the consciousness that exists today, is the same Being that was there at creation, and which created the bang. It is awesome to hold this awareness in your mind that all is now.

Originally Posted by Brian

Except that that doesn't describe our choices. We are literally UNABLE to believe that consciousness doesn't exist,

Supposing for a second that this statement is true then B. F. Skinner must have had a hell of a time pretending that consciousness did not exist.


Brian make no mistake, I agree with you that consciousness itself exists. Where we disagree is on all the attributes to it that you seem to say it has without anything to back up those attributes. Whereas I merely say that consciousness is individual and discrete to individual humans (and other complex organisms—like my cat for example).

It's not an option. It's still useful to recognize that as far as scientific method is concerned consciousness might as well not exist. That however doesn't mean it actually doesn't.

Probably why B. F. Skinner ignored consciousness and all the mess it creates. Which is really what debates on consciousness actually create—mess.

Nevertheless, we still can't observe the whole universe, and the only conclusion we can make about it on that mathematical basis is that it exists.

Regardless the universe exists whether you like it or not.

All I'm saying in regard to the musical-chairs-consciousness idea is that we have no way to know that it isn't happening.

Well when you suddenly wake up one day with my subjective experience of existence be sure to pm me to tell me about.


Trust me the musical-chair consciousness model is utterly absurd. So absurd that even my woo-woo believing mother asked if you were insane after I told it to her. In your defense I told her I didn't think you were insane, just prone to using terrible arguments.

That inability is itself important. Whether consciousness is, in fact, jumping from body to body is NOT. In this respect, it's just like the philosophical zombie idea. It's unimportant whether philosophical zombies actually exist. What's important is that we have no test to prove that they don't.

So on the basis of not having a test then we should just believe whatever hogwash we want? No I think not.


While it is not entirely scientific in the least as we cannot at this time devise such a test to find out about the inablity of consciousness to jump from person to person I find a simpler and more rational argument in that it cannot.


This is the experience of sane and healthy individuals have reported for centuries. As such it is completely rational, on a common-sense basis to assume that those who claim to take on other consciousnesses than their own are either insane, deluding themselves, or have some other medical condition.

Why?

If you don't know why then I suggest going back to the fifth grade. But I'll give you the Kinser's Digest Extremely Condensed Version ©.


1. The universe had to exist for the sun and the planets to exist.
2. The sun and planets have to exist for biological cells to exist
3. Over Billions and Billions of years this life evolved into multicellular lifeforms.
4. Eventually these lifeforms evolved into people.
5. Eventually these people created you, me and the internet—hence this asinine debate.

No, actually they're all about the universe as a whole and consciousness

In other words they are statements of opinion about what cannot be observed. Ergo they are not “truths”.

Nah, that's just what the atheist tells himself afterward to make himself feel good. In fact, it's largely an emotional reaction: doctrinaire religion tries to force itself on young person, young person rebels, rejects doctrinaire religion, becomes atheist, and thereafter also rejects anything remotely resembling doctrinaire religion in any way in full knee-jerk mode.

If you were really being rational about all this, you would reject only the assertions of theists properly so called and not confuse them with their fifth cousins twice removed.

Perhaps knee-jerk mode happens with many atheists. It may even happen with me. However the fact remains that atheism is the lack of a belief and religion/spirituality is maintaining a belief.


I also reject spirituality as well as religion due to my agnosticism. These spiritual matters simply cannot be known by man other than subjectively. I'm personally indifferent to whether you believe in Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a tea pot that orbits around the earth at a range of 1000 KM.


I do care when you start preaching the same bullshit to me. That is where I start care. (It should be noted that the yous here are general and not specific—IE the second person is used for persons other than Kinser whose reaction to all of it is “Bullshit...Next”.)

I'm not saying atheism is a religion. I'm saying that doctrinaire religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin

Religion by its nature is doctrinaire so what you are saying is that atheism is a religion. It is not. Review my definition of what a religion is from the other thread.

Sorry, but the reality on the ground here is that I know what spirituality is and you don't have a clue. You're flat wrong and, on this subject, utterly ignorant. Which is fine -- most people are -- but you should stop deceiving yourself that you know what you're talking about. You don't.

No actually Brian it is you who is being self-deceptive. You know no more about spirituality than I do. These things are completely unknowable. I just happen to think that they are unknowable because they do not exist.

Nope. I'm actively believing in the perfectly rational observation that consciousness is one thing, memory another, and you are relying here on memory only. Memories can be false -- I think you know that.

Memories are a component of consciousness. Without those memories consciousness cannot function. Well it can but we usually call such person newborns or dementia patients so even if your argument is that consciousness can work without memories—perhaps but not very well.

Stop those jerking knees, please. I already said OBE is not what I'm talking about here.

Then stop being vague and start explaining your “spiritual” experiences so I can shoot them down scientifically. Otherwise this is nothing but guess work.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One confusion that keeps arising in this discussion is one I should expect. .

Perhaps the problem Brian is you're arguing from a post-modernist position which is going to end up in failure regardless if you're talking to an idealist or a realist. Reason? Post-modernism is a failure itself. Next you'll be denying the existence of truth I suppose.

Originally Posted by Odin

How many times do you have to be told that "Argument by Consequences" is a fallacy, Eric? It does not matter if a statement is a better basis for political beliefs or not, what matters is if it is TRUE or not.

Odin since when did Eric care about if something is objectively true, or not a logical fallacy? I've seen enough of his posts to conclude that his basis of truth is a yes or no equation that revolves around whether it makes him (Eric) feel good or not.

If yes: Truth
If no: Lie

Your consciousness is discreet and individual, according to you, kinser. Can your consciousness be discreet and individual, if your body is not?

Try these experiments.

First try not breathing and see how long you exist.

Second, try not eating for a while.

When you're done with that, stop drinking.

Then, trying seeing or hearing without anything to see or hear.

Next, try being conscious even though you are not conscious of anything.

Finally, imagine your discreet individual being without any other people or society.

Try these experiments, and then come back and tell me you are a discreet and separate individual.


Can you read one of my posts, or not? I've seen enough of yours to conclude that you can't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can you read one of my posts, or not? I've seen enough of yours to conclude that you can't.

I was hoping to not have to answer this question. I've had you on ignore for over a week Eric. So no unless I actually desire to see your posts I can't see them.

Now if we're done here can I go back to pretending you don't exist?

Also your experiment proposal is stupid. Not that I'm entirely surprised by that of course