Consciousness And What Constitutes Proof?

[Iacchus32]

Just some excerpts from Zero's thread, about the nature of consciousness and what constitutes proof. For example, without consciousness, how can we establish the nature of anything, let alone the fact that we exist? Or how else would it be possible to establish this thing called science then? Therefore, where is the criteria for proof? Through science? ... or through consciousness?


From the thread, Why the bias against materialism? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By the way Zero, the "idea" of God which, is merely a thought, has to come from somewhere. And if as you say, thoughts and feelings are only physical, then how would you account for a "Spiritual God," if in fact He exists?

So in that case there has to be something "metaphysical" about consciousness, or not? ... Whereas similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...

And yet what is it about consciousness that doesn't "underscore" our very existence?

Originally posted by Zero
None of this makes any sense...

Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Forget science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science.

Originally posted by Zero
So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what I'm saying here as evidence if you like, but it is evidence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

Originally posted by Zero
Existing isn't evidence for anything except existence. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!"

No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth.

Originally posted by Zero
You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start!

I am the judge of my own situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Zero
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!

By the way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existence is only proof of your existence, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?

Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

 

[Iacchus32]

Since nobody wants to take a stab at it, let me just say this, we mustn't under-estimate the power of the observer, be it in science or otherwise. For without it, along with our ability to use deductive reasoning (asking pertinent questions), we would have no means by which to establish anything, period.

This is also the criteria by which we establish our intelligence by the way.

 

[Royce]

This thought has been rattling around in my consciousness for a few days, along with others.

Inductive reasoning is perfectly plausable withing the paradigm that all thought are simply objective activity of a material brain (hardware). The wiring is already inplace and only new connections or viewpoints are required to reach inductive conclusions.

Deductive reasoning, however, is the reaching of a conclusion with data or ideas not already there; but, by abstract reasoning alone.
Without spontainiously creating new wiring by thought alone how can inductive reasoning be explained in a purely objective paradigm?

If it is argued that the neurons make new connections, how do they do this if not in response to intentional abstract thought. This would be a contradiction to objectivity because then abstract subjectivity is the cause of the effect of new neuron connections.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
This thought has been rattling around in my consciousness for a few days, along with others.

Inductive reasoning is perfectly plausable withing the paradigm that all thought are simply objective activity of a material brain (hardware). The wiring is already inplace and only new connections or viewpoints are required to reach inductive conclusions.

Deductive reasoning, however, is the reaching of a conclusion with data or ideas not already there; but, by abstract reasoning alone.
Without spontainiously creating new wiring by thought alone how can inductive reasoning be explained in a purely objective paradigm?

If it is argued that the neurons make new connections, how do they do this if not in response to intentional abstract thought. This would be a contradiction to objectivity because then abstract subjectivity is the cause of the effect of new neuron connections.

Are you suggesting that everything has a subjective cause (motive) which gives rise to an objective effect? Makes sense to me.

It's sort of like when a man impregnates a woman, the moment has already and come and gone (cause or motive), of which the effect takes another nine months to become visible.

 

[Royce]

Well everything that man does, wheather impregnating a woman or writing a book. Subjectivity is the cause of the objective effect.
I was thinking that this might be proof or at least support that the sujective can and does cause objective effects. A point denied by our merialist and objectivist friends as you know.
Just be tween you and me theist I think that the point is well made that the subjective (intent) is the cause and creation of all of objectivity (the Universe).

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Well everything that man does, wheather impregnating a woman or writing a book. Subjectivity is the cause of the objective effect.
I was thinking that this might be proof or at least support that the sujective can and does cause objective effects. A point denied by our merialist and objectivist friends as you know.
Just be tween you and me theist I think that the point is well made that the subjective (intent) is the cause and creation of all of objectivity (the Universe).

Yes, and through our "subjective awareness" (consciousness), we can acknowledge the "effects" of creation ... and go out and "cause" something else to happen!

 

[[=LoF=]-Hunter-[AOT]]

Does not pain constitute proof of conciousness?