I Don't Mean to Offend. I Am Smart But..Help Me Out
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.
Tags: consciouness, health, life, mental, personality, religion
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Shanna on -
Also, when I asked him what illusion of I and objective reality meant he disappeared. So I am lost for explanations. Thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by M.M. on -
It sounds like he was just throwing stuff out there on the internet wall to see if it would stick.
I think he is saying consciousness is like any form of naturally occurring energy but only able to be fully realized through the human mind. It then persists even after its biological vessel has expired, having already existed prior to the human mind.
I dont know how he came up with that but it does not sound like a hypothesis based on anything except his imagination.
-
Permalink Reply by Shanna on
-
It's an interesting theory but I've seen no proof that the consciousness existed prior the human mind and will exist after. I'm not saying there is no proof, I just haven't heard of any. What amazed me was that he made it sound as if he was stating factual information. As if it was common knowledge. When I asked for more info he disappeared. Maybe because he realized he sounded like an idiot.
-
Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on -
He is an eternal, time-traveling alien who is only temporarily occupying his body. I should move to Colorado.
-
Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on
-
Perhaps he is a "new age" sort..I stopped at that station for a few days and then just got right back on the train. ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on -
:)
I stopped at that station for a few days and then just got right back on the train.
I'm stealing that.
-
Permalink Reply by Nate Lundgren on -
Consciousness or what is called the theory of the brain by some scientists is an emerging scientific frontier. The more that scientists study the brain with new tools and methods, the more they will be able to make a workable valid theory with verifiable and observable data. Until then it is just an unknown. It is fun to speculate about it but until we can measure it, there is no way to reach a "true" conclusion about it. To paraphrase a science professor that I like, it is better for me (more fun) to not know everything right now because that would be boring, I like the fact that there are new things for me and others to discover.
This guy you are talking with says that we can't model the brain or "consciousness" yet and that is partially correct just like everything he is saying. hahaha He then goes on to make up stuff like it being "pre-existing" and enduring "beyond" death based on what? His lack of knowledge or some other mysterious sounding crap? He is using the same old religious bullshit logic that you should just ignore. That is just his stupidity showing with him talking like he is smart for his own entertainment. He probably wants to sell his "beliefs" that are not based on any kind of reality just his imagination or some religious or speculative fake scientific non-sense.
Cosmos=himself or I, That is his equation. Talk about an overinflated and insane ego this guy has. hahaha :)
We should keep exploring our brains and consciousness (honestly and with humility) with the scientific method and any new tools we can discover so we can someday really understand it in any and every kind of "reality" whether it is from a subjective or objective point of view. Curiosity is one of the guiding forces of evolution (in my opinion) and it is fun to do until it kills ya. hahaha Take care of your self (brain) and just relax. :) You are smarter than that egomaniac and can just dismiss his silly ideas. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Val Wuthrich on
-
Yes, Nate and the rest of the members here are quite insightful and speak from reason, IMHO. The person on the Google blog sounds like some sort of new age whacko to me. Like you basically said, "Where's the proof?".
-
Permalink Reply by Ward Cressin on -
He is spouting new age mysticism to hang onto his belief in the soul. Whenever I've seen someone use the word "qualia", they are spewing newage mysticism. Where some people embrace the "god of the gaps" to hang onto god, he is embracing the "soul of the gaps" to hang onto the idea of a soul.
We are still learning about how our brains produce our minds but that should not be taken as a gap in which to stuff the idea of a soul. I was going to pick apart his claims but everything he said is wrong or very close to wrong. He almost gets close to some facts but then dances away from them.
The problem with talking to someone like him is that he thinks his ideas (or someone else's ideas that he adopted) are profound. Really, it only sounds that way. Because we can't point to a specific portion of the brain and go "there's the mind; there is the I / you", some people choose to see that as meaning that there is no I / you. It would be like trying to say there is no lawn in your yard because the individual bits are grass, not lawn. Said the right way it sounds profound. Examine it a bit and it sounds like garbage. (Rhyme deliberately avoided.)
There is information out there on "emergent complexity" that is showing us some interesting things about how our brains and minds might be working. And, unlike what he was spewing, it is based in reality.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on
-
The technical term for it is "Woo Woo". :)
What's new today
Events
Forum
Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Started by G in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) 1 minute ago. 346 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Christian Man Claims Native American Statue On License Plate Violates His Freedom Of Religion, Sues Oklahoma
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 3 Comments 1 Like
Videos
The Latest Giz Gad
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
