Jump to content

Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------


chandragupta
 Share

Recommended Posts

Issue is consciousness is the only entity who is 'self aware' as well as 'other aware'. Matter is neither 'self aware' nor 'other aware'.

Then, for the benefit of shared understanding and quality discussion, please continue here by offering a clear, concise, agreed upon and measurable definition of the term "consciousness." Once you do that, I'm sure we will be able to find some validity in your point, but not until.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself :- Who is this entity in you who calls himself 'I' & says '' once you do that I am sure we will be able to find some validity in your point, but not until''.

Irrelevant. I asked you a question. The above does not answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think & ask the question :- Who is this 'I' in my physical body I.e. in my material body , who claims " This is my physical body, This is my head, This is my hand, This is my house, this is my bank account, so on & so forth ?

 

What is your point? We already know that the answer to the question of life the universe and everything is 42.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think & ask the question :- Who is this 'I' in my physical body I.e. in my material body , who claims " This is my physical body, This is my head, This is my hand, This is my house, this is my bank account, so on & so forth ?

Again... This abysmally fails to even begin to address the challenge put to you.

 

For example... Prove to me that this desk below my keyboard is not "self aware." Demonstrate somehow that my desk is unable to "ask itself who is this 'I' in my physical body." You're asserting something as fact and then using the assertion itself as supporting evidence of your quote unquote fact. That's not how it works.

 

I asked for a clear, concise, agreed upon definition of the term "consciousness," not a random smattering of socratic questions. Can you oblige, or will you perhaps concede the point that your argument rested on a specious footing because no such simple straight forward definition is available to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is whether consciousness has come out of matter or matter has come out of consciousness? I feel more comfortable with the idea that matter has come out of consciousness & not the other way round.

Two conditions (at least) will have to be met to demonstrate any high enough truth value in your assertion to even leave it as plausible enough to not throw in the garbage can. For one, you will have to demonstrate that with evidence. Secondly, that evidence will have to out weigh the evidence for the conclusion that brain is required for consciousness, and a certain dynamic processing across and amoung certain rather specific structures within the brain, is required for consciousness. It very much appears that you are skating on the thin ice of a wild-eyed imagination--be it one that makes you feel good, even, nevertheless is nothing more than fantasy.

 

I see that this is another one of those good examples of just how much public education is still needed. Not only the SfN, but AAAS (and I am sure other organizations are working towards that too) are encouraging their memberships to be active in that so need a work. We are not going to be able to get everyone, that's true, of course, but we should strive to reach out and cover as much ground as possible.

 

The OPP has demonstrated a great lack of scientific method mentality, and is evidently weak in some other areas of 'should-have-been-investigated-firstly' domains--it does appear. Again, I wish to point out (and hope all will take fair note), it is surely better to be more careful with the use of the noun forms 'god' and 'God.' These are not the same, actually. The OPP is not talking about God in any sense of the term that is of a more accurate and standard usage nature. If we use the lower case form 'god' we should be careful to use it with the proper article (usually the indefinite article). The OPP seems to wish to talk about his, or her, god. It is the god which that person has created, and not any god, or goddess, which we can find described/prescribed to date. (to the best of my concerned knowledge)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are made of matter i.e. physical body & this thing who calls himself or herself 'I'. You already know a great about the nature of matter that it is composed of quanta + space time. So let yourself explore the nature of this thing who calls himself or herself 'I'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

This thing 'I' will not disappear by the denial of it's existence.

 

 

 

Surely not, since nature would have big problems creating sustained lifeforms who kill them selfs by a one time denial of existence.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing 'I' is not limited to you only. Keep in mind, this thing 'I' is present in each & every human being.This thing 'I' runs as a thread through all the human beings. This thing 'I' will persist till the last human being is alive. Death of an individual human being does not mean the death of this thing 'I'. Remember this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that you have nothing useful to say on this topic and can be ignored for failure to support anything intelligently. I also didn't need you to remind me that I'm welcome to my own opinion, especially since you have no authority to prevent me from offering it.

 

I'd love for you to address the questions and criticisms put to you in a meaningful way. This is an enormously fascinating topic for discussion. Hand waving, empty assertions, and ambiguously defined woo woo, however, don't tend to encourage the productive exchange of ideas among an empirically based and scientifically minded population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the first paragraph of your post I would say:- You are welcome to your opinion. As regards the second paragraph I would say:- Think very very hard (I know it would be very difficult for you to do this but do you must) as to who is this thing 'I' in you who says :- " I would love for you to address the question -----------------------------------------------------exchange of ideas among an empirically based &scientifically minded population ".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So should I assume that this thing 'I' in you is a monkey because you have posted picture of a monkey on my site. I feel extremely sorry for you to have conceived the idea that this thing 'I' in you is a monkey.

What site?

What monkey?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.