Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The best book on Nietszche i've come across. Nietzsche elevated alongside Plato.

If your a physicalist, you think experience only arrived on the scene after animals with a certain complexity evolved, so of course you're not going to think consciousness is a precondition for material existence! You're going to think your argument is purely epistemological and not metaphysical in the slightest, and you would be rationally justified in holding this.
Sorry to butt in guys.

Bill, it seems that Cargest is referring to consciousness as in the Godhead (in a prior post he mentions he refers to it as the monad), so you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here.

Carry on.

Consciousness is like the canvas onto which experience is projected: the canvas is infinite, and an infinite number of infinitely variable experiences are projected upon it.  This is the universe, in a metaphor.

I'm not referring to Godhead any more than I'm referring to that thing which is present within every single one of us - consciousness itself is both God and Man, as explained in so derisory a source as the Bible.

I might add, that any man might not be conscious; at least, he might not be aware of it yet.

Consciousness is like the canvas onto which experience is projected: the canvas is infinite, and an infinite number of infinitely variable experiences are projected upon it.  This is the universe, in a metaphor.

How does this justify the wierd conclusion that consciousness is non-physical because we depend on consciousness to experience physical things?

Perhaps we should simply accept that you have absolutely no interest in what it is to be human, and are destined never to have the drive to consider your own confines.

Edit: by that I do not mean capitulation, but that we have, yet again, reached the point where we are talking past each other.

Perhaps we should simply accept that you have absolutely no interest in what it is to be human, and are destined never to have the drive to consider your own confines.

Edit: by that I do not mean capitulation, but that we have, yet again, reached the point where we are talking past each other.

 :o

No, sir, we have reached the point where we have isolated a small argument that is responsible for our different philosophical positions. This is an achievement after so much guffing around.

EDIT: so we are not talking past each other.

Quote
consciousness is non-physical because we depend on consciousness to experience physical things

Our positions live or die on this argument. Please do not get grumpy with me if you are finding clarity embarassing. "Capitulation" is only a problem if your ego was driving this all along.

The nature of our debate is this: just as modernism is a negation of Tradition, your position (though accepted by Western society) is a negation of mine.  In this language game, in which we pit concepts against each other while never having them directly face each other (this is impossible, as above), my pieces are set up in a perfect offense, and yours in a perfect defense: this is stalemate.  My attempts for much of the duration of the game have, however, been to get you to stop playing.  Maybe then you'll see what there is to see - I can only hope.  As stated innumerable times: experience is what is required, not more words.

Edit: consciousness may be non-physical for a variety of reasons, but what makes it categorically so is that it can be experienced as being such.  We can be aware that we are conscious - that we are consciousness - and that any phenomena which pass through our awareness are nothing more than phenomena, and certainly not so much as to be "ourselves", though the majority love to hate the illusion.

The nature of our debate is this: just as modernism is a negation of Tradition, your position (though accepted by Western society) is a negation of mine.  In this language game, in which we pit concepts against each other while never having them directly face each other (this is impossible, as above), my pieces are set up in a perfect offense, and yours in a perfect defense: this is stalemate.  My attempts for much of the duration of the game have, however, been to get you to stop playing.  Maybe then you'll see what there is to see - I can only hope.  As stated innumerable times: experience is what is required, not more words.

Be noble, be a man. Did we or did we not reach an awareness just now of our fundamental disagreement - were we NOT talking past each other at the exact instant you said we WERE?

Is this, or is this not your essentially your argument for why consciousness is prior to anything physical? It seemed to be:

Quote
consciousness is non-physical because we depend on consciousness to experience physical things

Never have I stated that that's my "argument": I have, indeed, stated that an argument is likely insufficient, and that you need to experience the truth for yourself rather than acquire it second hand.

Never have I stated that that's my "argument": I have, indeed, stated that an argument is likely insufficient, and that you need to experience the truth for yourself rather than acquire it second hand.

Well then we can no longer converse. Congratulations! You have isolated yourself from rationality and other thinking human beings. Rather than concede the point you slander the method (rational debate). Grow up.

A man once told me that he didn't believe in France.  I told him that I've been to France, many a time - in fact, I plan to live there, eventually.  He gawked at my statement, and called me bold and ill-mannered for making such an assertion: surely I was aware that there was no such thing as France, and could never be!  Testimony would not suffice, and nobody could provide sufficient evidence for the existence of so imaginary a thing as France!  I showed him a map, and he called it a forgery; I spoke in the language, he called it nonsense.  I gave him directions, a guide, as to how to reach that fabled land, but he categorically would not take them - why journey to a land that doesn't exist?

I could not possibly persuade this man that France was real.

If your a physicalist, you think experience only arrived on the scene after animals with a certain complexity evolved, so of course you're not going to think consciousness is a precondition for material existence! You're going to think your argument is purely epistemological and not metaphysical in the slightest, and you would be rationally justified in holding this.
Sorry to butt in guys.

Bill, it seems that Cargest is referring to consciousness as in the Godhead (in a prior post he mentions he refers to it as the monad), so you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here.

Carry on.

Thanks Tralfamadorian. I can confirm I have just established this! Call me 'old fashioned', but I simply cannot stomach people who lapse into relativism when their position is finally found to be lacking on rational grounds. Christ, I think it's dishonest as well, as they obviously felt it was, at first, rational as they decided to embark upon the debate in the first place.

Define "relativism".  I honestly can't understand what you mean in this context, and fear that you may have another misunderstanding about a simple word.

Edit: might I also add that your logic broke down a good few posts back?  Consciousness as being non-physical is a primitive; it can't be expressed in a causal proposition, as this nature is a pre-requisite of causality.  Again, we're at the same point: do you or do you not agree with me yet?  And so it goes on, endlessly, until you decide to make your own enquiry.

Define "relativism".  I honestly can't understand what you mean in this context, and fear that you may have another misunderstanding about a simple word.

Excuse me if I refuse further debate with you, Cargest. What is the use of debating if we cannot even count on the judicial power of words put together in a logical sequence.

What are the use of finite sounds and symbols to express infinite concepts?  Why not learn to use the tools apt to the task at hand, instead of bandying about like a distressed toddler, incapable of shepharding himself towards Truth?  For all your talk of my needing to "grow up", your own maturity is the only one questionable, here; the day that you realise it will be a sombre one, if it comes to you (and you'll be immensely glad if it does, as I was).

Edit: to clarify, I don't mean that, as you do, in a pejorative way; I mean it as a simple statement.  You are not yet ready, as a constructed "person", to understand any of this; one day you may be.