• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness question

Iacchus said:
I understand you don't believe in God.
Click to expand...

How on earth can I believe, when Im able to SEE??????

Thats the difference. Big difference between uttering words and being capable of what you call Consciousness.

SEE! WHAT DO YOU SEE???? WHO ARE YOU??? SHOW ME
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
How on earth can I believe, when Im able to SEE??????

Thats the difference. Big difference between uttering words and being capable of what you call Consciousness.

SEE! WHAT DO YOU SEE???? WHO ARE YOU??? SHOW ME
Click to expand...
And you sir, are stuck in the rut of physicality. ;) The mind is not a physical entity.
 
Iacchus said:
And this is precisely what consciousness is, a continuum, with many minds.
Click to expand...

Don't follow/agree. One mind = one conciousness.
Conciousness itself isn't a singular entity. It is actually built upon parts.

Iacchus said:
Then I would say your building doesn't exist within the parameters of time and space, provided these other folks had the same capacity of physical sensation you had. I wouldn't expect them to see it in that regard.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the JREF Forum. Your "building=soul/externally channelled consciousness" does not exist.

Iacchus said:
No, your mind would have deceived you ... at least with respect to your physical sensations.
Click to expand...

Yet, I still persists in BELIEVING the building exists. What am I to do?
 
SuperCoolGuy said:
Your equating kingdom of heaven with consciousness, and I'm guessing God and the soul too in those regards, correct?
Click to expand...

Unavoidable conclusion. This is why he is not coherent, even when talking in "mystical" language.

If you claim you are something, at least you have to be an expert in that something. Otherwise, someone will note that you are merely bragging ;)

A "true mystic" to put a name on certain condition, is clearly aware of the so called "world" and the so called "consciousness". But more than that, its aware of all the fantasy of thinking. This is why being truly a mystic he is unable to believe, all his time is occupied by BEING. He does not has anything to do with being "spiritual" or "materialist" or anything else. He is in communion with existence, without concepts of any kind.

If this is what Iacchus was about, he would be real.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Unavoidable conclusion. This is why he is not coherent, even when talking in "mystical" language.

If you claim you are something, at least you have to be an expert in that something. Otherwise, someone will note that you are merely bragging ;)

A "true mystic" to put a name on certain condition, is clearly aware of the so called "world" and the so called "consciousness". But more than that, its aware of all the fantasy of thinking. This is why being truly a mystic he is unable to believe, all his time is occupied by BEING. He does not has anything to do with being "spiritual" or "materialist" or anything else. He is in communion with existence, without concepts of any kind.

If this is what Iacchus was about, he would be real.
Click to expand...
Indeed, language is a metaphor of "the mind." So, why do you bother to post? Or, do you discount the fact that you just typed these words on this very screen?
 
SuperCoolGuy said:
Your equating kingdom of heaven with consciousness, and I'm guessing God and the soul too in those regards, correct?
Click to expand...
Why listen to me? Bodhi Dharma Zen seems to be full of words. But, in answer to your question, yes. In many respects anyway.
 
Iacchus said:
Why listen to me? Bodhi Dharma Zen seems to be full of words. But, in answer to your question, yes.
Click to expand...

Alright. Please address post#388. Thanks.

Also, you believe the source of consciousness is outside this universe. I say that conciousness is based and formed within this universe.

Is there an experiment we could perform to prove either point, instead of metaphors and broadly worded statements?
 
Iacchus said:
In order to observe anything, you must have the capacity to stand outside of it. Or, would you have us all believe that you know nothing about the Universe?
Click to expand...
So, by your own logic, you know nothing about your own consciousness. I have been telling you that introspection is a flawed methodology; I did not know that you believed it all along. I agree, Iacchus, in order to observe what you call consciousness, you must do so scientifically. To simply observe one's own consciousness through one's own consciousness is, as you say here, quite impossible.

This is just one example of what we mean by your internal inconsistency.
 
Iacchus said:
Think about it? How so? That is the consciousness experience.
Click to expand...

Here's a better place to start.

Let's discuss a comprehensive, detailed definition of consciousness so that we might be on the same page a little better.

Who human has no conscious. A newborn? An embryo? A person in a coma (what type)?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, I've had to think about this one. :) I believe it is dissipated (as energy) through the chasis of the computer and into the ground. However, the memory is only as good as that which accesses it, and this is not the same thing. Of course the next thing to ask would be if a computer can become self-aware? This, I can't say.
Click to expand...

You believe this to be the case? I may have misunderstood your meaning, and if that is the case then feel free to correct me. However, this is not an accurate description of what happens.

Information in a computer's RAM exists in the form of physical "logic gates". In the RAM, basically it is a series of electrical pathways that are either "open" or "closed" (think basic circuitry, as in a light bulb, a battery, and a switch). All RAM is is a series of these ons and offs. When people say "information is 1's and 0's", what is meant (by the more educated among them) is that information is in the form of either an open circuit (an off) or a closed circuit (an on). At least, in RAM this is the case. In a CD-ROM, pits take the place of circuits. In a magnetic storage device, magnetically charged parts take the place. In a complicated setup of dominos, it is the domino paths. In an aquaduct set up to open or close certain sections based on where the water flows, it is the switches in the aquaducts. I include the last two examples to make it perfectly clear that a computer is nothing more than a series of reactions organized in a special way.

When you cut the power to RAM, all the circuits switch to their default position. Electricity is required to hold them in whatever position they are in. Without it, the data doesn't "dissipate", it vanishes. It is gone, and can't be recovered. The energy involved is in the form of the electricity, but that is not the information itself. The "information" is just the current state the RAM "switches" are in.

Memory is only as good as that which accesses it? How so? A slow processor accessing the RAM may work through the data more slowly, but the data is still just as good. If you mean to say it has to be accessed somehow in order to be useful, this is true. What of it?

And no, the next point isn't simply a question on whether a computer can become self aware.

My point is this. Since the information is little more than the current physical states of the eletrical "gates" in the RAM, then let me ask you this.

If I move a chair, is it's previous position "gone"? That is, does it's previous state exist as a soul in and of itself? Does that previous state of the chair go to heaven? Can it be judged? When it is moved into it's new position, does it gain a brand new soul in the form of it's current position? Data, after all, can be stored in this manner.

I hope I've expressed my point clearly enough.

And now, this idea of "just knowing". There is a fundamental flaw in the idea of "just knowing something to be true". This flaw is how do you know what you "just know" is true? Is it not possible that this "deeper knowledge" you are feeling is an outright lie, or a trick, or perhaps even self delusion? How do you know what you know to be so? I'll tell you this. We "know" not in an absolute sense but in the sense of testing, making observations, and coming up with likely explanations for the sum total observations we have made. The end goal is a full explanation that takes into account every single observation I have made in my life in a way that is self consistant. If an explanation does not tie all this together, it is insufficient as of yet. If an explanation contradicts other parts of itself or previous experience, it is flawed. Many things may contradict. Perhaps you both experience this steady world where you have to eat and sleep and this strange place where you had to give a speech naked and the podium turned into a dragon? So far, the explanation that accounts for BOTH of these observations without making a self contradiction is that there is a real world that is consistant and one part of this real world's rules allows for human minds to enter a "dream state" where imagination is uncontrolled by logic and creates a lot of fantastic imagery. It is the most likely one to be true, and this has been confirmed by observation. We can't just "know" this though. In fact, no matter what you say, you can't just "know" anything. There's no way to find out if what you "just know" is true or not in the absolute sense that you describe. Logic simply doesn't allow for that, and an attempt to posit something outside logic is... illogical :D. Even if what you "just know" IS true, that doesn't negate the fact that there is no way you can "know" that what you "know" is "so".

That was a lot to repeat what I started with...
 
Last edited:
Dark Jaguar said:
When you cut the power to RAM, all the circuits switch to their default position. Electricity is required to hold them in whatever position they are in. Without it, the data doesn't "dissipate", it vanishes. It is gone, and can't be recovered.
Click to expand...
Fine. However, unless these electrical impulses are converted into data, this is all we're looking at.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom