Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:04 am
Your claim of an indivisible-consciousness is merely hypothesis which is unverified and justified [unpolished] to be credible and objective.
You merely assumedit exists [hypothetically] without proving it is really-real [not absolutely but relatively] based a reality-FS in the first place.
I have never made any claims about an indivisible consciousness. You must have misunderstood what I mean.
My thesis is that an indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
OK, I used the wrong terms.
The term 'indivisible consciousness' can be replaced with "indivisible non-physical element", and my argument still stand.
There cannot be an indivisible-non_physical-element by itself.
According to Kant, to reify it as a mind-independent element is chasing after an illusion.
Your idea that there cannot be an indivisible-non_physical-element by itself is an illusion. My arguments prove that the existence of mental experience and our scientific knowlede about brain processes imply the existence of unphysical indivisible element. Read more carefull my arguments and try to understand them.
You throw in the claim:
there is an indivisible-non_physical-element without 'proof' and justification.
This is merely linguistic without any basis of reality proper.
False; I have provided rational arguments that prove my thesis.
This conversation has become too reptitive and I see no reason to continue.
I have never made any claims about an indivisible consciousness. You must have misunderstood what I mean.
My thesis is that an indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
OK, I used the wrong terms.
The term 'indivisible consciousness' can be replaced with "indivisible non-physical element", and my argument still stand.
There cannot be an indivisible-non_physical-element by itself.
According to Kant, to reify it as a mind-independent element is chasing after an illusion.
Your idea that there cannot be an indivisible-non_physical-element by itself is an illusion. My arguments prove that the existence of mental experience and our scientific knowlede about brain processes imply the existence of unphysical indivisible element. Read more carefull my arguments and try to understand them.
You throw in the claim:
there is an indivisible-non_physical-element without 'proof' and justification.
This is merely linguistic without any basis of reality proper.
False; I have provided rational arguments that prove my thesis.
This conversation has become too reptitive and I see no reason to continue.
Best regards.
You may think in your mind you got it right based on your own interpretations.
It is intellectually irresponsible to blame others for not understanding your argument, this is why the intellectual responsible person has to repeat to understand the theme [gist] of your argument.
I noted you keep pointing to others to read your argument properly.
Did you consider your argument may not be valid and sound or is presented shabbily.
If you want feedback, try presenting your argument in a syllogistic format.
It is your discretion, those who provide counters and feedbacks are only doing you a favor.