I would like to post a conversation I just had on Google+. I understand how my statements may sound offensive but I see things as I see it. My opinion is not unheard of but I am not saying it is fact. However, my issue really isnt about what I said it is about the response it received from a guy who didn't like what I said but posted his opinions. I don't understand them and I was wondering if someone could explain what he means by his definition of consciousness and "objective reality"

Me-Many people are superstitious and will have their religions. They will believe things and blindly "drink the koolaid" if they are offered anything that is better than everlasting death of themselves and their loved ones. This is just my opinion. Just think about it. You, the very essence of you has a finale. And some people don't want to believe that. Some people will appear to claim to have telepathy and can speak to this invisible person (hallucination) they believe watches over them and what they do (paranoia) which by the way is the same theme as Santa Claus. Key in "You better watch out. You better not cry" . And some make bargains (prayer/telepathy) to obey and be good so it wont send them to the scary place. Oh and get no gifts like a mansion in the clouds. Looks cool but i don't know how that works. My point is it keeps me in awe how weird our culture is and how far behind we are from other cultures (overseas) who understand evolution and will accept it as a more factual explanation of we became and how we die."

Him-Personality and memory will (almost certainly) end. Those things are not "the very essence of you." Nor are they consciousness.

What I was talking about before, which was different from that, was the fact that we cannot model consciousness and so have no  business thinking we know much about it. There's an unbridgeable qualia gap. We have no reason, looking at objective reality and all its processes including those occurring in the brain, to conclude that subjective consciousness should be occurring at all. As I said, in objective reality there is no I and there is no You -- there is only he, she, and it. We can describe all kinds of things about how the brain functions, but no one has ever posited any hypothesis about how any of this gives rise to someone inside -- an "I" -- experiencing anything subjectively. And I would suggest that no one ever will, that it is impossible.

As consciousness cannot emerge from brain activity by any conceivable mechanism, it must pre-exist brain activity, at least as a potential, and be a fundamental characteristic of existence comparable to space or time.

Do I believe that consciousness (although not memory or personality) endures beyond death? Yes. I as an individual will not, but I as an individual am an illusion anyway, a kind of distorted mirror thrown up by my brain. I -- the real I -- am the cosmos, and the cosmos was here before this body was born and will still be here, experiencing reality through all vehicles available (of which at the moment this body is one), after this body dies.

What is he talking about? Thanks.

Views: 929

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Don't forget: "A wet bird never flies at night."

Objective reality basically means what it is; its objective.  It wouldn't be reality if wasn't objective. Then it would subjective. Subjective basically means an opinion. Reality is not based on opinion but facts.

@ Keith Murphy,

I'm clapping.

Well said.  But would you not say that, as subjective beings, our subjective nature automatically colors what is objective?  Thus, it can be difficult (not impossible) to really discover true objectivity.  Certainly, we can get as close to objectivity as our subjective nature allows, but do we ever actually achieve what is truly objective?

I think this objective/subjective opposition is something of an illusion - as if something which is subjectively true, isn't true.  It can be objectively true that something is subjectively true. 

We were born of stardust, and when Sol expands and vaporizes earth, then throws off its outer shell, before collapsing and becoming a white dwarf, we will return to stardust - that is the only immortality we can honestly expect.

He still holds that there is a duality between mind and body, that the mind somehow exists outside the body and is therefore eternal. It does not matter how much he intuitively “feels” this. I also think his ideas on what "objective reality" is are....well...rather subjective.

Barry – I totally agree with reading books to seek other opinions rather than just ones that confirm our biases but "The Deepak"?

When you say “There is a lot of interesting information in there, which is very much science based in terms of quantum reality…” could you explain the “quantum reality” bit? Does D.C. claim to understand Quantum mechanics? (Feynman)


I admit reading Deepak is quite a departure - especially for myself, but yes.  At some level he does understand quantum theory regarding energy fields at the subatomic level.  However, where he takes that understanding is a completely different issue.  Like I said, I am not in anyway promoting Deepak.  What I was attempting to do was provide Shanna with a resource which would shed some more light on where the gentleman she was in conversation with was coming from - regardless of whether or not he was right or wrong. 

The best way I can explain why I choose to read Deepak is not to take him as an absolute authority, but to be aware of the information that he presents - much like an atheist may not buy stock in what the bible says, but they are very much knowledgeable in what it says and where it's deficiencies lie in coherence.  AND, atheists most often possess a great deal more of such knowledge than a devout Christian or fundie because they educate themselves on the information.

I have encountered people who do take Deepak very seriously and very devoutly - especially since he is promoted on pop culture shows like Oprah.  So why not read him in order to better understand their position and hold an intelligent conversation  or debate with them about their views?

Does this make sense? If it makes you feel any better, I have read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, and I am some what informed of Hitchens (although have yet to read his God is Not Great).  I don't agree with them entirely, but they are absolutely spot on regarding their problems with religion, in particular Christendom.

Barry - I can understand what you're saying, it's a good point - but oh God, I just can't be bothered to wade through all that loopy rubbish.  If some people get something out of it - then it has merit.  It's not my style at all, and I'm sure I share this with most atheists. 

There are those books "Conversations with God".  A friend gave me a copy when he was having a nervous breakdown (he's embarrassed about it now), and instead of throwing it in the bin, I kept it for the laugh value, and a lesson in how not to do that stuff.  However, I watched the movie about his life, and I ended up respecting the author.  He may be very muddled and disorganized, but there are plenty of good nuggets in there and he is actually not a charlatan.  And plenty of people have been helped by his books.  So I stand somewhat corrected. 

Another man's trash is another man's treasure.  Everything has value in it - even the absurd.  The benefit being that you can learn from it.  Even if you don't see any value in something, you still have learned something about yourself and your interpretation of the world around you, and that is not a bad thing.  Thus we should not discount something simply on it's face because the ultimate goal is to take what we can learn in this life and apply it in a way that is meaningful to us, and this is a good thing.

The best part about it is that it does not require one to believe in a being higher than oneself, it only requires a desire to do some good and leave something good behind for the benefit of others even if that benefit is not quite what you intend.  This is where I would find the meaning of life, this is our purpose as a species (in my opinion) to thrive to the highest level of our finite existence as a human being - theist or not.

Now - why can't Deepak be you?  We wouldn't be having this discussion.  If this was King of the Hill, Deepak would be Boomhauer and you'd be Hank Hill. 



© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service