Philosophy Now Forum

Age - I actually agree with the points that Lacewing made in the mindset thread about you, in fact even thought myself and LW don't get along - she said everything with regards to how I have felt towards any debate with you - in fact when reading your further quizzing of things that I have already answered, you appear to lack comprehension skills. ..or you just are attempting to see how soon you can wear out the lettering on your keyboard.

Further posts from you I will be extremely selective as to it's relevance, and whether I have already covered what you are asking.

Also, NOBODY likes the capitals every other word as if you are SHOUTING at us - it makes reading your posts look more ridiculous than they necessarily are. (just trying to help)

...and...since you talk down to everyone as if you have some far superior comprehension of EVERYTHING than that of us mere 'humans' - Why don't you start your own thread, and put your own theories\beliefs to the test!?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:17 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:42 am - IT is KARMIC.
- IT reincarnates US (souls) to within families - or other - that we deserve based on KARMA.

Would not a force of unhappiness deserve happiness according to the natural balance of yin/yang that functions according to recognized rules of physics shaped by the creator of karma, the creator of karma being attachment to the impermanent caused by ignorance *. If the answer to that rhetorical question is a hearty and heigh-ho away-we-go-yes, then the expectation of deserved future unhappiness for those presently unhappy is simply a projection implanted into ego by fantasy or litany that distorts the way things are, a distortion in a surprising number of instances due to viewing events through a conditioned lens of innocent/guilty/punishment.

* the key point

Mr Walker - I admit I do find your posts rather abstract and difficult to comprehend pertaining to any points you are attempting to make, and I am not sure whether you are misunderstanding my implications re KARMA or I am misunderstanding your above statement.

Indeed, I admit I don't know much about the actual term KARMA - as far as I am aware - you do bad shit, bad shit is gonna happen to you - something to that affect.

So, perhaps I am using the wrong term. What I am stating, shortly after the sage introduced himself to me Nov 2005, and he mentioned something personal about my prev life - I asked whether, how we have lived out our lives in the current one, determines, where and to which family we are reborn into (that which we deserve) - he then tapped my heavily on my right knee - as is RIGHT. (any taps on my left knee I considered the answer as WRONG - to my questions)
Thus - if you are some arsehole that goes around ripping people off, perhaps you get mega rich whatever - then you, who nose, I can only guess - perhaps you get reborn into some poor family in some rather nasty environment - perhaps a third world country - dunno, but ya shit happens.
Theists that become atheists, probably get born into atheist families and vice versa, should that arise. So, through time, we get what we deserve, until of course it ALL goes to shit!!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:58 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:41 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:34 pm
You're right, that is neither a definition or an explanation.

All you've you said is that there is some, "entity," that does something. That does not explain or define what that enitity is. Part of any entity's identity will be it's behavior (what it does) but it cannot be all of it's identity. It has to be something with some attributes that can, in some way, either perceived or discovered from some evidence.

The attributes I have described in the OP are from what I experienced, I describe those attributes purely from those experiences, empirical evidence that was provided to me.

That's fine. I have no objection to you believing what you find convincing. I'm not making an argument, just curious to know what you mean by, "God." I still don't know, but thanks for trying.

Just curious, how would you define consciousness?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:03 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:58 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:41 pm

The attributes I have described in the OP are from what I experienced, I describe those attributes purely from those experiences, empirical evidence that was provided to me.

That's fine. I have no objection to you believing what you find convincing. I'm not making an argument, just curious to know what you mean by, "God." I still don't know, but thanks for trying.

Just curious, how would you define consciousness?

Why would I? If you are not conscious, no definition can make you know what it is. If you are conscious, you already know what it is.

Unlike theists, the conscious to not attempt to convince others they are conscious if others doubt it. Those who claim to doubt there is consciousness only have to answer for themselves what exactly it is that is doing that doubting?

Consciousness is like the taste of cinnamon. It cannot be known by explanation. It is impossible to make someone who has never tasted cinnamon know what it tastes like. The only way to know what cinnamon tastes like is to taste it. Nevertheless, if someone asks me what cinnamon is, I can hand him a cinnamon stick and he can taste it and know for himself what it tastes like.

If you have tasted cinnamon, that experience is what I mean by consciousness, the direct tasting (as well as seeing, hearing, feeling, and smelling) of what exists.

If you can provide that kind of evidence I, or anyone else, can examine for ourselves as an explanation of what you mean by God, or even what attributes you ascribe to God, I might know what you mean.

Does that make sense to you?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:24 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:03 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:58 pm
That's fine. I have no objection to you believing what you find convincing. I'm not making an argument, just curious to know what you mean by, "God." I still don't know, but thanks for trying.

Just curious, how would you define consciousness?

Why would I? If you are not conscious, no definition can make you know what it is. If you are conscious, you already know what it is.

Unlike theists, the conscious to not attempt to convince others they are conscious if others doubt it. Those who claim to doubt there is consciousness only have to answer for themselves what exactly it is that is doing that doubting?

Consciousness is like the taste of cinnamon. It cannot be known by explanation. It is impossible to make someone who has never tasted cinnamon know what it tastes like. The only way to know what cinnamon tastes like is to taste it. Nevertheless, if someone asks me what cinnamon is, I can hand him a cinnamon stick and he can taste it and know for himself what it tastes like.

If you have tasted cinnamon, that experience is what I mean by consciousness, the direct tasting (as well as seeing, hearing, feeling, and smelling) of what exists.

If you can provide that kind of evidence I, or anyone else, can examine for ourselves as an explanation of what you mean by God, or even what attributes you ascribe to God, I might know what you mean.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes it does, and you have provided what I am attempting to allude to, the comparison between being conscious of 'things' common to wo/man and things not as simple to experience common to all.
I was considering picking apart a little of your first statement above, the 3 sentences. However, your last paragraph pretty much sums up the dilemma that one that has experience of this 'something' that can also provide, let's say the qualia of experienceing the tasts or smell of cinnamon but unless one can say here - have that cinnamon stick, well...that person can attempt to explain the qualia of experiencing it, but it is NEVER going to be comprehended by the other. Of course, we might have other experiences similar to cinnamon that one can attempt to draw the other that has never tasted it to consider as a comparison - but it will always, and never provide what you as a unique individual entity within the cosmos, actually experienced when tasting or smelling ladada..

SO.
All I have managed to do since 1997 upon comprehending certain attributes about the nature of indeed there being a 3rd party intelligence behind the ongoing 'projection' of what we perceive as reality --- is to then start looking 1st - at the language anomalies, (this was the 1st thing IT would do to me - it would call out words, yet broken - such as cement - it would call it out across the office as see meant - so the natural logical mind would go, weird - what about sea meant etc.. eventually, there were loads of words being called out - broken - down and then I started to delve right in to these words and came to the comprehension, whether you break them apart/reverse/homophonically compare, extrapolate etc...CERTAIN key words mainly pertaining to important things relating to life and existence - experienced in 1997 - from this entity, call it what U will, as it communicated to me, had me where there are far too many logical anomalies to accept that natural language etymology had occurred.
That was the what this 3rd part intelligence has me ...mmm...considering.
So along the years later, I started looking at ALL reality for indications of where this - what i consider - pantheist or panentheist - entity might have left further 'fingerprints' - anomalies on the globe.
Hence, the artwork of the landmarks - to scale - that are in the OP. So there AND that - is at this stage, all I have thus far provided as evidence (shared) of the taste of a cinnamon stick - a taste of 'GOD'.
These are ANOMALIES that defy what a rational mind should dismiss as mere coincidence. There are simply far too many...even the word coincidence - that you may have noticed I have played on - flip an unbiased coin enough times and you shoud get a fair approximation of heads or 666 - tails.

Coin_side_ence - the probability of both the words and the landmasses to scale should be something to consider as unatural, as evidence that this is indeed not a godless formed world - or at least there is an intelligence behind its making.

On that point - I'd be interested in any consideration you have relating to some of the imagery. (I have thick skin - am I talking irrational crap to you?)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:31 pm Coin_side_ence - the probability of both the words and the landmasses to scale should be something to consider as unatural, as evidence that this is indeed not a godless formed world - or at least there is an intelligence behind its making.

I cannot make any judgement of what you claim is your experience because no one can know what anyone else's experience is. I think that agrees with your explanation via "qualia," (a concept I do not personally agree with, but accept for this discussion).

What you regard as evidence of the, "unnatural," would not be evidence to me of anything more than what I regard as perfectly natural. One problem I see with your view is the idea of, "intelligence." There is no, "intelligence," independent of intelligent organisms, i.e. human beings as far as I know, so your idea of intelligence is either some disembodied thing or an attribute of some being, such as God. If the latter, I'm still waiting for a description of that. Just, "some kind of intelligent being," is hardly a description I could understand, since the only intelligent beings I know are human beings and I'm sure none of them made the universe.

I'm just explaining what your, "evidence," means to me. I know it means something else to you and have no interest in changing your mind. Of course I think you're wrong, but you think I'm wrong, but our difference in views does neither of the other any harm and reality will determine who is right. We're both patient, reality and I.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:46 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:31 pm Coin_side_ence - the probability of both the words and the landmasses to scale should be something to consider as unatural, as evidence that this is indeed not a godless formed world - or at least there is an intelligence behind its making.

I cannot make any judgement of what you claim is your experience because no one can know what anyone else's experience is. I think that agrees with your explanation via "qualia," (a concept I do not personally agree with, but accept for this discussion).

What you regard as evidence of the, "unnatural," would not be evidence to me of anything more than what I regard as perfectly natural. One problem I see with your view is the idea of, "intelligence." There is no, "intelligence," independent of intelligent organisms, i.e. human beings as far as I know, so your idea of intelligence is either some disembodied thing or an attribute of some being, such as God. If the latter, I'm still waiting for a description of that. Just, "some kind of intelligent being," is hardly a description I could understand, since the only intelligent beings I know are human beings and I'm sure none of them made the universe.

When I state - unnatural - clearly I believe this God\'God' entity to be natural - what I am stating with the term 'unnatural' is that for example, the existence of a car - it is man made, it does not occur as a product of 'nature' (ya humans are a product of nature ...and this argument could go on ad-infinitum). The existence of this planet and key words in English - are this God\'God' entity made\construed.

I have never stated that the universe was created by any intelligence (you might be skipping what I have stated, that's what happens when one considers the other just a 'theist')

The fact that we or at least yourself and countless others can only conceive of an intelligence by way of DNA biological makeup is rather short-sighted, or am I missing something here as to your point?

You state that human beings are the only intelligent beings that you know (in existence) - and earlier, I asked you to define consciousness, as you asked me to define God.

Your answer (re consciousness) was, that simply being conscious means you already know what 'it' is. Me ol' mate - that is not a definition either.

So define OTHER peoples consciousness..

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm The fact that we or at least yourself and countless others can only conceive of an intelligence by way of DNA biological makeup is rather short-sighted, or am I missing something here as to your point?

Who said anything about DNA, or, biology, having anything to do with intelligence. Not I! Life, consciousness, and the human mind are not physical attributes. That DNA is related to the nature of any specific organism is irrefutable, but I do not believe it determines anything more than the physical aspects of an organism. An organism's life is exhibited in the organism's behavior, not its physical characteristics.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm You state that human beings are the only intelligent beings that you know (in existence) - and earlier, I asked you to define consciousness, as you asked me to define God.

Your answer (re consciousness) was, that simply being conscious means you already know what 'it' is. Me ol' mate - that is not a definition either.

I don't know what you think a definition is, then. A definition only has to indicate what a concept identifies, and I explained that consciousness is that experience one who has it calls perceiving--seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. That's all it is. If you are not conscious it will mean nothing to you because it identifies something you cannot possibly know. If you are conscious, that is, if you do see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, then you know what it is.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm So define OTHER peoples' consciousness..

I just did. If others see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, that is their consciousness. There is no way to know if anyone else is conscious, but it is unlikely anyone who says they are would lie about it.

I suspect you're trying to get at something you think I'm missing. If I am, feel free to help me know what you think I'm missing.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm The fact that we or at least yourself and countless others can only conceive of an intelligence by way of DNA biological makeup is rather short-sighted, or am I missing something here as to your point?

Who said anything about DNA, or, biology, having anything to do with intelligence. Not I! Life, consciousness, and the human mind are not physical attributes. That DNA is related to the nature of any specific organism is irrefutable, but I do not believe it determines anything more than the physical aspects of an organism. An organism's life is exhibited in the organism's behavior, not its physical characteristics.

Fine. So you agree that it is plausible that a conscious intelligence equal to at least that of a human being could exist as that of a non biological DNA nature?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm You state that human beings are the only intelligent beings that you know (in existence) - and earlier, I asked you to define consciousness, as you asked me to define God.

Your answer (re consciousness) was, that simply being conscious means you already know what 'it' is. Me ol' mate - that is not a definition either.

I don't know what you think a definition is, then. A definition only has to indicate what a concept identifies, and I explained that consciousness is that experience one who has it calls perceiving--seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. That's all it is. If you are not conscious it will mean nothing to you because it identifies something you cannot possibly know. If you are conscious, that is, if you do see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, then you know what it is.

Yet I explained the concept of God, I identified its attributes, (you identify consciounsess by its attributes of the human senses) yet you are attempting to refute or at least, make out that you don't understand God as per my definition of the attributes of God.

Surely we could define a car by certain attributes. I have defined God by its attributes, neither necessarily have to be conscious, have senses.

I am not necessarily stating God has conscious senses, but sure, I am stating it has the ability to input to our senses - otherwise, I would not have reason to be creating this thread, and certainly no reason to state there is an intelligence that has the attributes that can govern what we perceive as reality, as I ascribe to it in the OP.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm So define OTHER peoples' consciousness..

I just did. If others see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, that is their consciousness. There is no way to know if anyone else is conscious, but it is unlikely anyone who says they are would lie about it.

I think you are aware of 'the problem of other minds'..

My point here, is that you cannot discern anything as being conscious beyond your own sensory input - i think therefore I am - that is ALL you can be 'the' most certain of.
You are so certain of your perception garnered from those senses...to the point of claiming you have a definition of consciousness and I have no definition of God.

Which means, it will take some PROOF input to your senses, that you can rationally, beyond a reasonable doubt, confirm that there is indeed an entity behind, at least, the construct of our planet...yes?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm I suspect you're trying to get at something you think I'm missing. If I am, feel free to help me know what you think I'm missing.

Of course I am, we both are attempting to 'out logic' the other, so long as we keep any prior assumptions and bias aside, (I should win #; )

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm The fact that we or at least yourself and countless others can only conceive of an intelligence by way of DNA biological makeup is rather short-sighted, or am I missing something here as to your point?

Who said anything about DNA, or, biology, having anything to do with intelligence. Not I! Life, consciousness, and the human mind are not physical attributes. That DNA is related to the nature of any specific organism is irrefutable, but I do not believe it determines anything more than the physical aspects of an organism. An organism's life is exhibited in the organism's behavior, not its physical characteristics.

Fine. So you agree that it is plausible that a conscious intelligence equal to at least that of a human being could exist as that of a non biological DNA nature?

Let's make it simple. Intelligence is not a thing, not a substance or entity, it is an attribute of some living organisms. It cannot exist independently of those organisms. The organisms I know with that attribute are human beings, it is, along with volition, and rationality the nature of human consciousness called the human mind.

There is no such thing as a non-biological form of life. It is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. "Bio," means living, "biological," means pertaining to life. You cannot have life that does not pertain to life, and you cannot have a non-material form of life.

If you believe there can intelligence independent of an human being, fine. I'm not going to change your mind. Here's what I know about life, consciousness, and mind:

The Nature of Life

The Nature of Consciousness

The Nature of the Mind

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm ... I explained the concept of God, I identified its attributes,

Then I missed something. The only, "attribute," I think you identified was intelligence. If you named other attributes, I'm sorry I didn't catch them.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm I am not necessarily stating God has conscious senses, but sure, I am stating it has the ability to input to our senses - otherwise, I would not have reason to be creating this thread, and certainly no reason to state there is an intelligence that has the attributes that can govern what we perceive as reality, as I ascribe to it in the OP.

Does, "it has the ability to input to our senses," mean in addition to what is provided by the perceptual neurological system (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc.). If so, how is that any different than an hallucination? How could you tell?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm So define OTHER peoples' consciousness..

I just did. If others see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, that is their consciousness. There is no way to know if anyone else is conscious, but it is unlikely anyone who says they are would lie about it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm I think you are aware of 'the problem of other minds'..

I don't see how it is a, "problem?"

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm My point here, is that you cannot discern anything as being conscious beyond your own sensory input - i think therefore I am - that is ALL you can be 'the' most certain of.

Descartes' skepticism is nonsense, an intentional denial of one's own consciousness, to question it. To say, "I doubt everything," assumes their is an I to doubt. The correct premise is, I am conscious of something therefore both my consciousness and that which I am conscious of exist and are not the same thing.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm You are so certain of your perception garnered from those senses...to the point of claiming you have a definition of consciousness and I have no definition of God.

I didn't say you didn't have a definition of God, only that it was not a definition that means anything to me. If that bothers you, consider it a deficiency on my part.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm Which means, it will take some PROOF input to your senses, that you can rationally, beyond a reasonable doubt, confirm that there is indeed an entity behind, at least, the construct of our planet...yes?

Well, I do not believe existence is contingent on anything else, that's true, and I do not accept anything as true that cannot be based on evidence that anyone can examine or discover by reason from such evidence.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm I suspect you're trying to get at something you think I'm missing. If I am, feel free to help me know what you think I'm missing.

Of course I am, we both are attempting to 'out logic' the other, so long as we keep any prior assumptions and bias aside, (I should win #; )[/quote]
No matter what you think, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I have no agenda, do not hold any ideology, and have no interest in changing anyone else's mind. I enjoy discussing ideas and to like explain mine to those who are interested, but nothing more.

I learned long ago it is not possible to change others and it is wrong to try to, because every individual has their own mind and must do their own learning, thinking and choosing and live their own life to the best of their ability. I only wish them all well.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm
Who said anything about DNA, or, biology, having anything to do with intelligence. Not I! Life, consciousness, and the human mind are not physical attributes. That DNA is related to the nature of any specific organism is irrefutable, but I do not believe it determines anything more than the physical aspects of an organism. An organism's life is exhibited in the organism's behavior, not its physical characteristics.

Fine. So you agree that it is plausible that a conscious intelligence equal to at least that of a human being could exist as that of a non biological DNA nature?

Let's make it simple. Intelligence is not a thing, not a substance or entity, it is an attribute of some living organisms. It cannot exist independently of those organisms. The organisms I know with that attribute are human beings, it is, along with volition, and rationality the nature of human consciousness called the human mind.

I agree that consciousness as we know it, is an attribute (and not physical) of the human mind - which is within, yes a biological form, but this is only a limitation of what we know about consciousness by way of what appears around us in the form of life.

So again, and worded slightly different: Do you think it plausible\possible that a conscious intelligence can exist as an attribute of a non-biological form?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pmThere is no such thing as a non-biological form of life. It is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. "Bio," means living, "biological," means pertaining to life. You cannot have life that does not pertain to life, and you cannot have a non-material form of life.

I never disputed that.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pmIf you believe there can intelligence independent of an human being, fine. I'm not going to change your mind. Here's what I know about life, consciousness, and mind:

The Nature of Life

The Nature of Consciousness

The Nature of the Mind

I did have a little dabble into the 2nd link there, I don't generally like links within debates I have to admit (unless the thread I am debating within is on a topic I have little to know idea about!) - glad to see we share similar interests, have you read anything by David Chalmers, if so, do you have any opinion on his endeavour to scientifically understand consciousness?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm ... I explained the concept of God, I identified its attributes,

Then I missed something. The only, "attribute," I think you identified was intelligence. If you named other attributes, I'm sorry I didn't catch them.

Well you only need to read the OP - Age was kind enough to get this thread going as per my request in the OP for people to challenge me as to how I conclude based on personal empirical evidence of God, that it has these particular attributes.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm I am not necessarily stating God has conscious senses, but sure, I am stating it has the ability to input to our senses - otherwise, I would not have reason to be creating this thread, and certainly no reason to state there is an intelligence that has the attributes that can govern what we perceive as reality, as I ascribe to it in the OP.

Does, "it has the ability to input to our senses," mean in addition to what is provided by the perceptual neurological system (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc.). If so, how is that any different than an hallucination? How could you tell?

Did you just skim the OP at best?

Just so I am clear, what is your definition of 'hallucination'?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm So define OTHER peoples' consciousness..

I just did. If others see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, that is their consciousness. There is no way to know if anyone else is conscious, but it is unlikely anyone who says they are would lie about it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm I think you are aware of 'the problem of other minds'..

I don't see how it is a, "problem?"

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm My point here, is that you cannot discern anything as being conscious beyond your own sensory input - i think therefore I am - that is ALL you can be 'the' most certain of.

Descartes' skepticism is nonsense, an intentional denial of one's own consciousness, to question it. To say, "I doubt everything," assumes their is an I to doubt. The correct premise is, I am conscious of something therefore both my consciousness and that which I am conscious of exist and are not the same thing.

I think the correct premise would be, I think therefore I have consciousness. Anything perceived beyond that consciousness, could be total bollocks.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm You are so certain of your perception garnered from those senses...to the point of claiming you have a definition of consciousness and I have no definition of God.

I didn't say you didn't have a definition of God, only that it was not a definition that means anything to me. If that bothers you, consider it a deficiency on my part.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:10 pm Which means, it will take some PROOF input to your senses, that you can rationally, beyond a reasonable doubt, confirm that there is indeed an entity behind, at least, the construct of our planet...yes?

Well, I do not believe existence is contingent on anything else, that's true, and I do not accept anything as true that cannot be based on evidence that anyone can examine or discover by reason from such evidence.

So, have you only skimmed my OP? (which was updated as per Age's questions)
Or, have you read all the detail, and viewed the imagery relating to that detail?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm

attofishpi wrote:

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm I suspect you're trying to get at something you think I'm missing. If I am, feel free to help me know what you think I'm missing.

Of course I am, we both are attempting to 'out logic' the other, so long as we keep any prior assumptions and bias aside, (I should win #; )

No matter what you think, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I have no agenda, do not hold any ideology, and have no interest in changing anyone else's mind. I enjoy discussing ideas and to like explain mine to those who are interested, but nothing more.

That is ok, and certainly on this particular topic, I would be extremely surprised if anyone could convince me to be an atheist (gaining knowledge of God's existence, is a one way trip!).

Unfortunately, and I think it stems from all the militant atheism out there with preconceived biases and attacking all the weak spots within any theology, which is the place to start so fair enough - but I for one, am pretty darn pissed off with the label since the likes of Dawkins as being 'deluded' (especially now since I know there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of our perception of reality.)
I have little reason to doubt evolution and many things that theists appear to be stuck in the mindset of people thousands of years ago.

These militant atheists and many atheists in general have this notion that you either believe in science OR religion/God.
That pisses me off quite a lot! When I debate with my atheist friends about God - they actually get lost when I start discussing science - it appears they have never bothered to watch docos or read books on current scientific theories.
IF there is a God, (there is) then there is a scientific explanation yet to be discovered as to the true nature of its existence, AND, eventually, most likely physicists MAY get to that point.

There have been plenty of subject areas where I was NOT particularly knowledgeable, and entered with preconceived idea, was eventually proven to be wrong - in those cases, I tend to admit and thank the person for educating me - it is rather rare, probably moreso because I am not a huge interactor on this forum (especially these days) - but I have over the years learned a LOT from the academics (unfortunately most of whom have left the forum now)

SO.
Yes, probably because of what I stated above re the likes of Dawkins and his cohorts, I DO want to convince people to be at least theist minded, or at the very least, lose some of their 'militant' attitude and be more open minded to other concepts within the realm of there being a God. (the 'saving' people notion to me is bollocks btw!!)
US Evangelists and all the preaching of 'God hates xxx' has done more of a disservice to Christianity than most other of these preaching idiots.

Interestingly PASTOR - reverses to - ROT_SAP (Well said God )

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm I learned long ago it is not possible to change others and it is wrong to try to, because every individual has their own mind and must do their own learning, thinking and choosing and live their own life to the best of their ability. I only wish them all well.

I disagree - I have changed my mind about some preconceived ideas I had, even on this forum, and as I stated, I thank the person for educating me - often in those cases, links have been embedded for me to learn what was required.

Yes, good will to ALL non-hating wo/men!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:52 am RCSaunders: The correct premise is, I am conscious of something therefore both my consciousness and that which I am conscious of exist and are not the same thing.

attofishpi: I think the correct premise would be, I think therefore I have consciousness. Anything perceived beyond that consciousness, could be total bollocks.

Both premises build on a very similar idea: the idea that there is a separate "I/self" that can have/own consciousness - an I that thinks and that is conscious of something that is not itself...

But what if this idea is incorrect?
Its not too far fetched as there is actually no direct experience of such a self/I (there are always only thoughts about such an entity)...

Also, there being no separate self/"I" (which has/owns consciousness) doesn't have to result in there being no consciousness at all - it would only mean that there is no separate entity which could own consciousness.

But lets assume - as most people seem to do - that there actually is such a self, that there is a real, separate entity "I" outside of thought and language... Wouldn't this mean that "I" would have to be able to experience consciousness as separate from myself?
I guess we all might agree that this is perfectly impossible - one will always only experience something when one is conscious... but wouldn't that actually mean that the "I" and "consciousness" are impossible to separate, and that, while experiences come and go, one thing will always be the same: that wherever I am, consciousness is.
Consciousness is actually the only permanent "thing" - or rather: true self - which is always here/now - there is no way to escape it.

I think we all know this permanence within ourselves, yet we still rather identify with the changeful person, the individual which is only made of conceptual thought... and then we go one step further and state that this separate person - not more than a bundle of thought - can actually be conscious, that it can even have its own consciousness... not very logical, if you ask me...

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:02 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:17 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:42 am - IT is KARMIC.
- IT reincarnates US (souls) to within families - or other - that we deserve based on KARMA.

Would not a force of unhappiness deserve happiness according to the natural balance of yin/yang that functions according to recognized rules of physics shaped by the creator of karma, the creator of karma being attachment to the impermanent caused by ignorance *. If the answer to that rhetorical question is a hearty and heigh-ho away-we-go-yes, then the expectation of deserved future unhappiness for those presently unhappy is simply a projection implanted into ego by fantasy or litany that distorts the way things are, a distortion in a surprising number of instances due to viewing events through a conditioned lens of innocent/guilty/punishment.

* the key point

Mr Walker - I admit I do find your posts rather abstract and difficult to comprehend pertaining to any points you are attempting to make, and I am not sure whether you are misunderstanding my implications re KARMA or I am misunderstanding your above statement.

Indeed, I admit I don't know much about the actual term KARMA - as far as I am aware - you do bad shit, bad shit is gonna happen to you - something to that affect.

So, perhaps I am using the wrong term. What I am stating, shortly after the sage introduced himself to me Nov 2005, and he mentioned something personal about my prev life - I asked whether, how we have lived out our lives in the current one, determines, where and to which family we are reborn into (that which we deserve) - he then tapped my heavily on my right knee - as is RIGHT. (any taps on my left knee I considered the answer as WRONG - to my questions)
Thus - if you are some arsehole that goes around ripping people off, perhaps you get mega rich whatever - then you, who nose, I can only guess - perhaps you get reborn into some poor family in some rather nasty environment - perhaps a third world country - dunno, but ya shit happens.
Theists that become atheists, probably get born into atheist families and vice versa, should that arise. So, through time, we get what we deserve, until of course it ALL goes to shit!!

The crux of what you say here, is “deserve.”

Deserved is a fascinating concept, and a wide, rich portal into philosophical contemplation that post-orders unfolding experiences, which leads to the root of all knowing, the source that was, however briefly at first, exposed to the sunshine of comprehension.

Eventually what emerges as a law of causation is the impartial, logical conclusion that whatever happened was deserved, harsh as that may sound to the “Am” judgments made by “I.”

Inferring why it was deserved can lead one to undiscovered views outside the lane of linear causation.

Sooner or later all roads* will lead to outside-of-time, perpetual and undistracted awareness of objectless awareness, a.k.a., the experience of emptiness.

* Eventually, the meandering, paved back roads of knowing lead to the expressway in a single lifetime.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:21 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:52 am RCSaunders: The correct premise is, I am conscious of something therefore both my consciousness and that which I am conscious of exist and are not the same thing.

attofishpi: I think the correct premise would be, I think therefore I have consciousness. Anything perceived beyond that consciousness, could be total bollocks.

Both premises build on a very similar idea: the idea that there is a separate "I/self" that can have/own consciousness - an I that thinks and that is conscious of something that is not itself...

But what if this idea is incorrect?
Its not too far fetched as there is actually no direct experience of such a self/I (there are always only thoughts about such an entity)...

What do you mean by separate "I" and "self" ? ------ the "I", the "'think" and the ""I have consciousness" - as per my statement, are not seperate to the "self" - surely you would infer, that "self", is just pure consciousness - no separation.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:52 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:46 pm
Fine. So you agree that it is plausible that a conscious intelligence equal to at least that of a human being could exist as that of a non biological DNA nature?

Let's make it simple. Intelligence is not a thing, not a substance or entity, it is an attribute of some living organisms. It cannot exist independently of those organisms. The organisms I know with that attribute are human beings, it is, along with volition, and rationality the nature of human consciousness called the human mind.

I agree that consciousness as we know it, is an attribute (and not physical) of the human mind - which is within, yes a biological form, but this is only a limitation of what we know about consciousness by way of what appears around us in the form of life.

So again, and worded slightly different: Do you think it plausible\possible that a conscious intelligence can exist as an attribute of a non-biological form?

No, I don't. I think consciousness is only possible to living entities (organisms).

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pmThere is no such thing as a non-biological form of life. It is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. "Bio," means living, "biological," means pertaining to life. You cannot have life that does not pertain to life, and you cannot have a non-material form of life.

I never disputed that.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:47 pmIf you believe there can intelligence independent of an human being, fine. I'm not going to change your mind. Here's what I know about life, consciousness, and mind:

The Nature of Life

The Nature of Consciousness

The Nature of the Mind

I did have a little dabble into the 2nd link there, I don't generally like links within debates I have to admit (unless the thread I am debating within is on a topic I have little to know idea about!) - glad to see we share similar interests, have you read anything by David Chalmers, if so, do you have any opinion on his endeavour to scientifically understand consciousness?[/quote]

The links were provided only if you were truly interested in my views. It is frustrating to me when others expect you to explain your views in terms of their short attention spans. One's epistemology or ontology cannot be explained in 30 words or less.

My views are similar Chalmers except for his dualism. I agree that consciousness is not physical but not that it is ontologically distinct from the physical, but simply another attribute of material existence and not possible independent of physical organisms. I make the same distinction about life, which he neglects.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:46 pm So, have you only skimmed my OP? (which was updated as per Age's questions)
Or, have you read all the detail, and viewed the imagery relating to that detail?

Yes. You do not want to know what I think of it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:52 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:27 pm I learned long ago it is not possible to change others and it is wrong to try to, because every individual has their own mind and must do their own learning, thinking and choosing and live their own life to the best of their ability. I only wish them all well.

I disagree - I have changed my mind about some preconceived ideas I had, even on this forum, and as I stated, I thank the person for educating me - often in those cases, links have been embedded for me to learn what was required.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I said it is not possible to change others, not that they could not change themselves or learn from others.