Philosophy Now Forum

Actually, you do have a sense of grandeur, DAM, if only for the sense that only you exist, and nothing beyond you.

I believe that what matters is the person experiencing, but I accept things exist beyond my experience, on their own accord.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:35 pm Actually, you do have a sense of grandeur, DAM, if only for the sense that only you exist, and nothing beyond you.

If you mean only you exist in the context of only Dam exists, just means you never listen to any of my posts.

Dam doesn't exist...except as a conceptual appearance known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. Consciousness does not appear.

You are being clueless to understand what is meant by there is no you because there is no other than you. This does not apply to conceptual appearances...aka the identified one, names, or labels...which are appearances of consciousness ..consciousness is empty, it has never been seen.

The consciousness that is in you.. is the same consciousness that is in me. There is only consciousness. The empty fullness.


.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:32 pmI agree insofar as perceptions require explanation. But does the awareness that does the experiencing require explanation, beyond the neurological, in your view, uwot?

Finally! A sensible question.
Some bright spark once commented that if the brain were simple enough to understand, we wouldn't be smart enough to understand it. And as I think Arthur C. Clark said, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. That's kind of where we are with consciousness; we don't currently have the technology to determine whether strictly neurological explanations will ever account for our awareness.
Philosophy of mind is by far the most baffling topic that I studied as an undergraduate and, while I salute the brave or foolhardy who devote their careers to it, I have given it a fairly wide berth ever since. My instinct, and subsequent training for that matter, is to test neurological explanations to destruction, but much as I would like to give a definitive answer, I don't have the hubris displayed by others to believe I actually know.
Having said that; on the one hand I can imagine that a few years down the line, we will have mobile phones that pass the Turing test. On the other, I can't envisage a test that could distinguish between something that looks exactly like the awareness that I experience, and something that is the same as my awareness.
Short answer: dunno. But nothing would surprise me.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:27 pmConsciousness does not appear.

I take it you don't have kids/weren't paying much attention and/or were never one yourself/still are.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:32 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:27 pmConsciousness does not appear.

I take it you don't have kids/weren't paying much attention and/or were never one yourself/still are.

Kids appear, consciousness does not.

No kid has consciousness, is conscious...a kid is an appearance of consciousness. A kid is a concept known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

.