Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you believe in GOD?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2,149 replies to this topic
gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#1831

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:04 PM

No. Religion is nothing but mind control 


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#1832

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:13 PM

The location which we experience our subjective experiences is not located within physical reality, as a matter of fact based upon what we currently understand, it can't. The image of vision you see and experience is illuminated and colored, two characteristics that cannot exist within the physical world because A) EM waves are not colored and B) EM waves are not illuminated, it is a due process of our consciousness that perceives EM waves to be so.
 
Where do you believe the location of our consciousness resides?

You lost me there. What we see is basically just an interpretation of reality. I don't know how to explain consciousness and I don't think anyone has any conclusive explanation for it. That's why I refrain from making claims about it.

 

I also don't see why you think it has to be a phenomenon outside the Universe.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1833

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:22 PM

It's a slightly futile argument to have with GMS because his entire argument is based on assumptions that are largely subjective and personal. Which isn't to say they're empirically wrong, but building theories based on supposition and supposed rationality when your starting premise isn't itself provable or quantifiable doesn't really carry a great deal of weight. Especially when the individual in question seems to spend so much of his argument going this is what science says whilst presenting what can be best described as Fisher-Price science but hey, I gave up taking anything he ever claimed to be true as more than an opinion log ago.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1834

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:23 PM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 23 February 2014 - 08:28 PM.

Sivispacem as a moderator I would expect you to know better than to post off topic posts. Conducting ad hominems without actually addressing the topic at hand will get this thread nowhere other than derailed. If you want to try and discredit me atleast do so through legitimate discussion/debate rather than just trying to pull the rug out from under my feet to attempt in making me look silly.

 

 

 

The location which we experience our subjective experiences is not located within physical reality, as a matter of fact based upon what we currently understand, it can't. The image of vision you see and experience is illuminated and colored, two characteristics that cannot exist within the physical world because A) EM waves are not colored and B) EM waves are not illuminated, it is a due process of our consciousness that perceives EM waves to be so.
 
Where do you believe the location of our consciousness resides?

You lost me there. What we see is basically just an interpretation of reality. I don't know how to explain consciousness and I don't think anyone has any conclusive explanation for it. That's why I refrain from making claims about it.

 

I also don't see why you think it has to be a phenomenon outside the Universe.

 

 

 

I'll try and explain it better..Your vision that you experience must exist somewhere. It exists, we experience therefore it must have a location. 

 

If you cut open a brain there's no image, there's no color, it's just a lump of wet grey matter. Inside your skull it is completely colorless, not even pitch black because black itself is a characteristic of color and there is no color in the external physical world. 

 

If what you see and experience is not occurring literally within the brain itself, where is it occurring, and why can't we detect it in the physical world using science?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1835

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:28 PM

I'll try and explain it better..Your vision that you experience must exist somewhere. It exists, we experience therefore it must have a location. 

Must according to what, besides your opinion? Not science or even most branches of metaphysics so I struggle to see where this assertion comes from.

Unless you're claiming that all experience must have a physical manifestation, in which case explain to me how you can permit people who have been blind all their lives to see by manipulating their brains? Or how non-physical experiences manifest themselves in physical and measurable ways in general.

Also, please point out my use of ad hominem attacks or off-topic posting? I'm addressing your theories;if those theories are on topic then logically my discussion of them should be too? And it's no secret that you have a habit of disappearing mid debate once someone points out that your entire argument is based on a subjective opinion or unproven tenet. In fact if you look back through this thread you've done just that a couple of times.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1836

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:34 PM

 

I'll try and explain it better..Your vision that you experience must exist somewhere. It exists, we experience therefore it must have a location. 


Must according to what, besides your opinion? Not science or even most branches of metaphysics so I struggle to see where this assertion comes from.

Unless you're claiming that all experience must have a physical manifestation, in which case explain to me how you can permit people who have been blind all their lives to see by manipulating their brains? Or how non-physical experiences manifest themselves in physical and measurable ways in general.

 

 

It must according to logic. Where do you believe our consciousness exists, or do you believe the vision you experience doesn't actually exist? And if so what do you believe it to be?

 

As far as the second part, I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking.. as I said before the brain is a transmitter, if it is damaged the received signal will be damaged as well. If that damage is causing blindness and the damage is fixed then sight will be regained. What is it exactly you were asking about this?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1837

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:39 PM

Why must it exist according to logic? Continuing to assert something must be the case without providing a rational argument as to why it must be isn't exactly skilled debating, and I thought that that question was pretty clear in my response. Why must all experience have a physical manifestation? Science has shown that you can artificially create experiences and implant emotions based on certain stimuli without ever directly exposing a living creature to those stimuli. There's no actual reason consciousness requires a physical manifestation.

IDredMan
  • IDredMan

    Dred

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2013
  • None

#1838

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:45 PM

I believe in the Abrahamic god, And respect all religions equally (The 3 holy ones and all the others, even tho some don't share my beliefs).

 

But I know for a fact that god is not really a big booming figure in the sky judging everyone. And I know for a fact that a human being wouldn't even start to comprehend something beyond his level of consciousness, even less translate that to average people, who have to  retell it through thousands of years.

  • The Leviathan and ten-a-penny like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1839

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:47 PM

Why must it exist according to logic? Continuing to assert something must be the case without providing a rational argument as to why it must be isn't exactly skilled debating, and I thought that that question was pretty clear in my response. Why must all experience have a physical manifestation? Science has shown that you can artificially create experiences and implant emotions based on certain stimuli without ever directly exposing a living creature to those stimuli. There's no actual reason consciousness requires a physical manifestation.

 

Are you really asking why consciousness must exist according to logic? Because we experience it! We all experience it, it's the one fundamental thing that makes us alive and aware.

 

If you're claiming consciousness doesn't have to exist then you might as well say all of reality is just a dream, that nothing is real and every single person you've ever met is just a figment of you imagination. Just because we can alter how our consciousness receives signals from the brain in no way makes consciousness itself any less real than it already is...

  • The Leviathan likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1840

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:37 PM

Why must it exist according to logic? Continuing to assert something must be the case without providing a rational argument as to why it must be isn't exactly skilled debating, and I thought that that question was pretty clear in my response. Why must all experience have a physical manifestation? Science has shown that you can artificially create experiences and implant emotions based on certain stimuli without ever directly exposing a living creature to those stimuli. There's no actual reason consciousness requires a physical manifestation.

 
Are you really asking why consciousness must exist according to logic? Because we experience it! We all experience it, it's the one fundamental thing that makes us alive and aware.

But then that just descends into circular logic. Consciousness must exist because we experience it, and experience is how we know consciousness exists. Neither of which answer the fundamental question of why consciousness must have a physical manifestation.
 

If you're claiming consciousness doesn't have to exist then you might as well say all of reality is just a dream, that nothing is real and every single person you've ever met is just a figment of you imagination. Just because we can alter how our consciousness receives signals from the brain in no way makes consciousness itself any less real than it already is...

Well, in a physical sense we can't prove that consciousness exists because the only thing that offers evidence of consciousness are experiences which in themselves are a manifestation of consciousness, but given that essentially descends into either Discordian metaphysics (that is, that the principles of order and disorder are merely products of the human central nervous system and that consciousness itself is neither objectively true not empirically verifiable) or Solipsism (that is, the only thing that actually exists is one's own mind and everything else is a construct thereof) they aren't brilliant for discussion of experience because both basically claim that such a thing doesn't exist. That said, in terms of actual empiricism they hold just as much weight as any other metaphysical theory given that the one defining characteristic of metaphysics is that it is entirely intangible.

Allow me to get side-tracked for a moment in responding to this; the aspect of your argument I have the most trouble with is that you seem to think your theories hold more substantive weight than any of the other alternatives. The simple fact of the matter is that, in technical terms, the belief that nothing exists save for one's own consciousness is by far the most difficult theory to nullify. Try demonstrating, using empiricism or rationality, that something exists which isn't a product of your own mind. It's impossible. And I'm sorry, but your continued insistence that consciousness must have a physical form because it is capable of experience doesn't make it any more true than a contrary argument that insists that nothing exists except consciousness.

All of which is a lovely metaphysical debate and highly engaging and though-provoking, but has very little to do with belief in a deity or even in a divine force of creation. Even if your comments about the physical nature of consciousness were true- which no-one can say definitively or demonstrably and thus they represent nothing more than a subjective belief- I fail to see what this has to do with your argument that an external, divine creator must exist. An argument that, if you really wish you continue, you probably should do so from where you left off earlier in this thread, as in here. We've actually come full circle and you're yet again making the same points you did 20-odd pages ago in this very thread, so unless you're going to address the earlier comments by myself and other refuting many of the statements you'd made about the scientific understanding of creation I'm don't really think it's reasonable for you to start the whole damn argument all over again. We'll just end up at the same impasse as before, and then you'll leave as before, ad infinitum.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#1841

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:52 PM

I understood what you referred to the first time, GMS. That's a tricky question, but I don't think it reveals what you think it does. Consciousness is very likely a manifestation of many processes happening in the brain, and unless you know where to look, you won't be able to find it. We have yet to fully understand the brain. Maybe one day we will be able to understand the brain so well that we will get a good understanding of how consciousness works and maybe we will even be able to examine other people's consciousness, by displaying it on a monitor or something.

 

As a comparison, the data on your hard drive is also untraceable in the absence of the proper equipment to display it. You can put the disk under a microscope, study the individual molecules\atoms and you won't be able to see the information itself (as displayed on your monitor by your video card). Consciousness could manifest in the same way, as a by-product of different processes. Without the brain or some other adequate equipment there is no way to study\experience it.


Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#1842

Posted 23 February 2014 - 10:45 PM Edited by Rainbow Party, 23 February 2014 - 10:45 PM.

I'm pandeist, I believe everything is "god".


018361
  • 018361

    "Bad characteristics covered in Christs blood"

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • United-States

#1843

Posted 23 February 2014 - 11:01 PM

I have mixed feeling about this topic because whereas I want to go to heaven when I die and meet all my family members who have since passed away and live in eternal paradise, but it appears as though all my asking for salvation from all the pain and frustration of this world falls upon deaf ears. So, if you believe in God and Jesus and think that some of your prayers have actually been answered could you send one up on my behalf? Perhaps they would be willing to hear from one of their more loyal followers. :^:   


Average white guy
  • Average white guy

    Story Mode Fanatic

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#1844

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:43 AM

Do I believe in a higher being? Yes. Do I think there is life after death? Yes. IMO God is what created everything and controls what happens in the universe.


humanekonvict1985
  • humanekonvict1985

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2014
  • New-Zealand

#1845

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:21 AM

I have never been so tempted at being part of a forum discussion and this is my observation from everything I've read since page 1.
Those who use science to argue the impossibility of god are doomed to a circular argument. Just as much trying to prove the existence of god.
Man will NEVER find the method to prove or disprove what many regard as that " something " out there that. Be it god, higher intelligence, or aliens for that matter.
One of the most flawed and yet repeated (in this forum) arguments posed by the science "fact based" crowd is that science will prove all and is infallible in its pursuit of evidence or answers.
Sadly this is not and will never be the case. An imperfect being cannot know perfection.
Life itself IS perfection, human beings will never be god-like, they will never create a universe as the one we live in. You can spout computer simulations and lab tests but I repeat an imperfect human being will never know how to create emotions, spirituality, beauty or the sense of wonder and the unknown. We live in the realm of humanity and people like the ones bashing GMS are scared of that reality. Acting much like the early god fearing churches they seem to hate.

I am disgusted by the level of arrogance such as lightning strike, implying there are rules to something like a god... I mean you are human, that in itself means your nothing but a lost child seeking answers trying to make sense of life, much like I am but I am not arrogant enough or so indoctrinated by mainstream science that I cannot open my mind to something unknown much more powerful than I and that around me.
What that is, is just the stupidity of people today thinking they know limitations to all and think they know the "truth" when your truth is no more than a guess by a scared ape.
Myself, I do not conform to religion, nor do icon form to evolution. Both religion and science have been proven to be wrong.
If you question how science is wrong then you need to be more aware of the world around you. If you think science doesn't suffer from what religion did back in its day then you are worse off than those you claim to be ignorant. Scientists have been silenced and shut down for not conforming to the mainstream evolution theory and the like.

In a nutshell those who spout science as proof of no god by evolution and think the same rules that apply in our reality to all other realities are beyond help. They may as well replace science with the word god and hold hands with those they scoff at. You know nothing and I know nothing. This is reality.
  • GrandMaster Smith, ten-a-penny and Average white guy like this

Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#1846

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:24 AM

"...if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him" - Mikhail Bakunin


The Leviathan
  • The Leviathan

    Goof the floof.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2006
  • United-States
  • Best Contributor [Movies & TV] 2012
    Best Writer 2012
    Story of the Year 2012 "Grand Theft Auto V"
    Best Concept Story 2012 "The Story of Albert de Silva"

#1847

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:33 AM Edited by The Leviathan, 25 February 2014 - 01:34 AM.

I believe in the idea of God.

 

Plain and effin' simple.

 

03-12-2012-santorum_0.jpg

 

#clickdatsiggy

 

#followdatcult

 

#mindcontrolyabuttz

  • gtamann123 likes this

Average white guy
  • Average white guy

    Story Mode Fanatic

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#1848

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:38 AM

"...if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him" - Mikhail Bakunin

Why would God need to be abolished? Oh wait, I know... communism says so.


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1849

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:44 AM

 

 

Why must it exist according to logic? Continuing to assert something must be the case without providing a rational argument as to why it must be isn't exactly skilled debating, and I thought that that question was pretty clear in my response. Why must all experience have a physical manifestation? Science has shown that you can artificially create experiences and implant emotions based on certain stimuli without ever directly exposing a living creature to those stimuli. There's no actual reason consciousness requires a physical manifestation.

 
Are you really asking why consciousness must exist according to logic? Because we experience it! We all experience it, it's the one fundamental thing that makes us alive and aware.

 

But then that just descends into circular logic. Consciousness must exist because we experience it, and experience is how we know consciousness exists. Neither of which answer the fundamental question of why consciousness must have a physical manifestation.
 

If you're claiming consciousness doesn't have to exist then you might as well say all of reality is just a dream, that nothing is real and every single person you've ever met is just a figment of you imagination. Just because we can alter how our consciousness receives signals from the brain in no way makes consciousness itself any less real than it already is...

Well, in a physical sense we can't prove that consciousness exists because the only thing that offers evidence of consciousness are experiences which in themselves are a manifestation of consciousness, but given that essentially descends into either Discordian metaphysics (that is, that the principles of order and disorder are merely products of the human central nervous system and that consciousness itself is neither objectively true not empirically verifiable) or Solipsism (that is, the only thing that actually exists is one's own mind and everything else is a construct thereof) they aren't brilliant for discussion of experience because both basically claim that such a thing doesn't exist. That said, in terms of actual empiricism they hold just as much weight as any other metaphysical theory given that the one defining characteristic of metaphysics is that it is entirely intangible.

Allow me to get side-tracked for a moment in responding to this; the aspect of your argument I have the most trouble with is that you seem to think your theories hold more substantive weight than any of the other alternatives. The simple fact of the matter is that, in technical terms, the belief that nothing exists save for one's own consciousness is by far the most difficult theory to nullify. Try demonstrating, using empiricism or rationality, that something exists which isn't a product of your own mind. It's impossible. And I'm sorry, but your continued insistence that consciousness must have a physical form because it is capable of experience doesn't make it any more true than a contrary argument that insists that nothing exists except consciousness.

All of which is a lovely metaphysical debate and highly engaging and though-provoking, but has very little to do with belief in a deity or even in a divine force of creation. Even if your comments about the physical nature of consciousness were true- which no-one can say definitively or demonstrably and thus they represent nothing more than a subjective belief- I fail to see what this has to do with your argument that an external, divine creator must exist. An argument that, if you really wish you continue, you probably should do so from where you left off earlier in this thread, as in here. We've actually come full circle and you're yet again making the same points you did 20-odd pages ago in this very thread, so unless you're going to address the earlier comments by myself and other refuting many of the statements you'd made about the scientific understanding of creation I'm don't really think it's reasonable for you to start the whole damn argument all over again. We'll just end up at the same impasse as before, and then you'll leave as before, ad infinitum.

 

 

The point I was intending was just because science can't test something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. which went off topic rather quickly lol but for good reasons because consciousness is a very interesting topic. I do though strongly believe consciousness is an example of the meta-physical and that things can exist outside and beyond physical reality. There isn't really anything to say our bubble of consciousness itself actually exists within physical reality and several things that suggests it can't.

 

I don't believe our consciousness is physical ie made up of matter, but I do believe it must have a location.. at least somewhere.  I know this is an unprovable question but I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on consciousness and why you believe it doesn't need to have a location? An answer more than just we can't prove therefore I don't know type response too lol. For even the example of the hard drive another poster wrote above, even if you can't see the bigger image and l the information when looking at the hard drive on the atomic level you still need a location such as a computer screen to display and make use of the information stored on it, so I'm just curious to hear why you believe there doesn't need to be a location for our consciousness?

 

As a naturalist and materialist (I'm assuming), why would consciousness evolve seemingly beyond physicality? Or more importantly, how? All speculative answers of course but still interested in hearing yours and even other's points of view. 

 

Humans are observers/awareness at our most fundamental level. Our senses display lights and sounds, smells and taste that make sense of the world around us. What makes us 'us' is our awareness, we're able to step back and observe our thoughts and senses from a sort of 2nd perspective if we wish. Our vision we perceive is a screen that we watch, if this screen doesn't exist within our brain or within physical reality, then where/what is it?

  • The Leviathan, Average white guy and humanekonvict1985 like this

Dottie
  • Dottie

    Crusher of hopes and dreams

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2013
  • Red-Cross
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#1850

Posted 25 February 2014 - 02:26 AM

I like cookies  :cookie:

  • The Leviathan likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#1851

Posted 25 February 2014 - 02:30 AM

"...if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him" - Mikhail Bakunin

 

That uh... doesn't make any sense. As 'philosophical' as that may sound.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1852

Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:12 AM

 I don't believe our consciousness is physical ie made up of matter, but I do believe it must have a location.. at least somewhere.  I know this is an unprovable question but I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on consciousness and why you believe it doesn't need to have a location

 

why does consciousness need a location?

there's simply nothing that actually suggests our consciousness is anything but the sum-total of our senses working in unison to project the physical world back at us.

  • Tacymist likes this

Niobium
  • Niobium

    PROFESSIONAL IV FANBOY & SH*TPOSTER

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#1853

Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:37 AM

since we're on gtaforums, I will leave a modified quote from V

"religion is bullsh*t. fairy tales told by people afraid to look life in the eye."

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1854

Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:56 AM

 

 I don't believe our consciousness is physical ie made up of matter, but I do believe it must have a location.. at least somewhere.  I know this is an unprovable question but I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on consciousness and why you believe it doesn't need to have a location

 

why does consciousness need a location?

there's simply nothing that actually suggests our consciousness is anything but the sum-total of our senses working in unison to project the physical world back at us.

 

 

Because as you said yourself in other words- we are not our vision and our senses but our perceptions are separate, being projected by our mind which we actively observe. We at our most basic form are finite amounts of awareness itself, we are awareness/consciousness.. if that makes sense. We are not our thoughts, sensations and emotions, we are observers to all of these.

 

For something to be displayed for us to observe, it logically must have a location. I believe the location which we observe reality is the same location where we experience our dreams, simply our state of consciousness is shifted elsewhere, out from physical reality to an alternate one. If you've ever experienced lucid dreaming first hand it's almost impossible to deny this, at least for myself it is. 

  • The Leviathan likes this

Murray Bunyan
  • Murray Bunyan

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#1855

Posted 25 February 2014 - 07:10 AM

Yes.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1856

Posted 25 February 2014 - 08:19 AM

Myself, I do not conform to religion, nor do icon form to evolution. Both religion and science have been proven to be wrong.

Wait, what? First you say that religious belief can never be demonstrated to be wrong, then you say it's been proven to be wrong?
 

Because as you said yourself in other words- we are not our vision and our senses but our perceptions are separate, being projected by our mind which we actively observe. We at our most basic form are finite amounts of awareness itself, we are awareness/consciousness.. if that makes sense. We are not our thoughts, sensations and emotions, we are observers to all of these.

Our perceptions are independent from the physical form of our bodies inasmuch as cutting a body open won't permit you to see someone's consciousness or awareness, but that's a far cry from them being fundamentally separate. This, lucid dreaming or any other intangible experience doesn't offer proof that consciousness is physically separate from flesh. How could it?

If the argument that consciousness much exist physically outside of the human brain is valid, then why do traumatic brain injuries alter people's consciousness and awareness? Why can we manipulate people's perception and emotions using nothing more that a well-placed electrode? Surely if the fundamental entity which was consciousness existed entirely independent of, and physically separate to, the brain, then it could not be manipulated in such a basic way?
 

For something to be displayed for us to observe, it logically must have a location.

Except we can't observe consciousness, because it isn't a physical entity. You can't observe what's intangible; consciousness is observation.
  • Tacymist and siray like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1857

Posted 25 February 2014 - 08:56 AM

For something to be displayed for us to observe, it logically must have a location.

 

we don't observe our consciousness.

we embody it.
 

  • sivispacem likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1858

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:01 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 25 February 2014 - 09:10 AM.

 

Our perceptions are independent from the physical form of our bodies inasmuch as cutting a body open won't permit you to see someone's consciousness or awareness, but that's a far cry from them being fundamentally separate. This, lucid dreaming or any other intangible experience doesn't offer proof that consciousness is physically separate from flesh. How could it?

If the argument that consciousness much exist physically outside of the human brain is valid, then why do traumatic brain injuries alter people's consciousness and awareness? Why can we manipulate people's perception and emotions using nothing more that a well-placed electrode? Surely if the fundamental entity which was consciousness existed entirely independent of, and physically separate to, the brain, then it could not be manipulated in such a basic way?

 

 

I addressed a this question to another poster on the last page with- The brain is a transmitter, similar to an antenna on a radio. It transmits information received from our senses to our consciousness. If the antenna or the radio tower is damaged, the signal you receive will be damaged as well. 

 

 

 

 

Except we can't observe consciousness, because it isn't a physical entity. You can't observe what's intangible; consciousness is observation.

 

 

You must've misunderstood what I was trying to say because I said we observe the perceptions our mind projects, not consciousness itself.

 

We observe our perceptions, consciousness itself is experienced.


TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#1859

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:15 AM

I can't understand why people want to believe that god exists, he's horrible.

 

Genesis 22 - God commands Abraham to slaughter his son as a test of loyalty
Genesis 7:21-23 - God floods the world and causes the largest genocide ever
2 Kings 2:23-24 - God has bears maul 42 children to death for teasing someone
Deuteronomy 13:6-10 - You must kill family members who believe in different gods or don't believe at all.
Exodus 12:29 - God kills all the first born children of Egypt because of its' stubborn king.
Numbers 16:41-49 - God kills 14,000 because they complained to Moses that God was killing too many people.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a woman is raped she must wed the rapist or be stoned to death


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1860

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:25 AM

We observe our perceptions, consciousness itself is experienced.

 

sounds like you're agreeing with us now...

 

consciousness is the intangible sum of our sensory intake.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users