Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

Undergod

Galvasean wrote: »

Stephen Merchant?

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

All phenomena is cause and effect. Consciousness is not cause and effect, it may seem to be but on true examanation of its nature it is not.

And do you non-phenomenally examine the true nature? Is the examination itself not a phenomena and the ensuing thought of it as such? Your consclusions are all phenomena.

Do you "access" true consciousness from outside of the realm of cause and effect?

celticcrash

And do you non-phenomenally examine the true nature? Is the examination itself not a phenomena and the ensuing thought of it as such? Your consclusions are all phenomena.

We cannot examine the true nature of mind through reasoning, because reasoning is looking outwardly. So yes I have to use phenomena to reason with the intellect to come to a conclusion. And again yes conclusions are cause and effect.

Do you "access" true consciousness from outside of the realm of cause and effect?

I wouldn`t use the word access, consciousness is not cause and effect.
What ever phenomena happens it does not have an effect on consciousness.
Consciousness stays the same, it justs reflects the phenomena like a mirror.
If you smash a mirror image of an object it does not effect the object.
We chase after the mirror image and try to make it better.
All along forgetting thats its only an image, believing the image as the real thing.

Sindri

From your link.

Science has not yet produced a viable theory of consciousness.

What do you want to know?

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

Do you "access" true consciousness from outside of the realm of cause and effect?

I wouldn`t use the word access, consciousness is not cause and effect.
What ever phenomena happens it does not have an effect on consciousness.
Consciousness stays the same, it justs reflects the phenomena like a mirror.
If you smash a mirror image of an object it does not effect the object.
We chase after the mirror image and try to make it better.
All along forgetting thats its only an image, believing the image as the real thing.

So consciousness is completely separate from all phenomena? So you have consciousness without phenomena?

And also, can consciousness have an effect on phenomena?

robindch

celticcrash wrote: »

The concept of nihilism can not cognize consciousness. But consciousness can recognize the concept of nilhilism.
To cognize is to know. Again the concept of nihilism can not exist without consciousness.

I didn't say it couldn't, but then again proposing the counter-propositional concerning a nihilistic proposition is to assume the logical consistency of fact and counter-fact. And that's shaky ground, even in situations where nihilistic propositions which contain no inherent statement of fact or value are concerned, particularly ones which assert the reality, apparent reality or otherwise of ephemeral constructs, or seemingly ephemeral, neurological, cultural and semi-cultural constructs, such as consciousness, moral sense, truth, beauty, virtue and so on.

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

I didn't say it couldn't, but then again proposing the counter-propositional concerning a nihilistic proposition is to assume the logical consistency of fact and counter-fact. And that's shaky ground, even in situations where nihilistic propositions which contain no inherent statement of fact or value are concerned, particularly ones which assert the reality, apparent reality or otherwise of ephemeral constructs, or seemingly ephemeral, neurological, cultural and semi-cultural constructs, such as consciousness, moral sense, truth, beauty, virtue and so on.

You haven't been at the sherry again, have you?

Galvasean

mickrock wrote: »

You haven't been at the sherry again, have you?

recedite

enfant terrible wrote: »

****ing Magnets, How Do They Work?

Looks like magnets underneath the table are working these synchronised swimming goldfish. Notice how their stiff bodies move along, without any actual swimming motion;)

"This guy actually knows how to tap into that transcendental goldfish consciousness:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUglpZ-PPb4

[/QUOTE]

celticcrash

Again if we examine the consciousness mind we will find that its essence is empty, for if not anything that enters it would lodge there and it would soon fill up, giving it a start and finish. A permanent edge.
But the mind is free from permanence.And its nature is to cognizant.

So if its essence is empty which carries a connotation of nothingness it can be better described as free from permanence and non-existence.
Which goes beyound eternalism and nihilism.

BluntGuy

mickrock wrote: »

It's not just plucked out of the air.

There is science underpinning it, particularly quantum mechanics.

That article is horrendous. It's clear our "doctor" knows next to nothing about quantum mechanics. I've never seen a more butchered, garbled, clumsy, vague and downright unhelpful explanation of Q.M.

It can be proven that light in some experiments behaves like particles (photons), and in other experiments it behaves like waves, and both experiments are true. So waves and particles are complementary aspects of light (Bohr)

This isn't the most egregious error the article makes - by pretending that photons are classical particles rather than quantised units of light that describe both the wave and particle nature of it. But it's a subtle one that plays an important part in the laughably awful correlation our doctor tries to make between Q.M and his non-local consciousness hypothesis that will come into play later. It also deliberately misuses the term "complementary" and shoves "Bohr" after it to give it some legitimacy. Again, the reason it makes these mistakes becomes clear later in the article.

It goes on to assume the Copenhagen interpretation of Q.M is true and deliberately doesn't bother to mention there are many others. Rambles on with a pop science explanation of "non-locality" and some vague sophistry about "phase space", and then it proceeds to make the most laboured, nonsensical and irrelevant analogy of all time. I don't know if it quite tops the terrible TV one, but it certainly made me cringe.

I was about to begin typing up a line by line dissection of where this article fails miserably, but it doesn't even deserve it. It feels like a copying and pasting of different bits of quantum mechanics that sound credible, but are just about "mystic" sounding enough to give cover to his hopelessly ill-formulated theory.

celticcrash

18AD wrote: »

So consciousness is completely separate from all phenomena? So you have consciousness without phenomena?

And also, can consciousness have an effect on phenomena?

Phenomena arises within the consciousness so we cant say that its completely separate. If you put oil and water in a barrel and shake it, then it will look non seperate, but leave it alone and the oil will come to the top.

If you know the answer to the second and third question please tell me.

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

Phenomena arises within the consciousness so we cant say that its completely separate. If you put oil and water in a barrel and shake it, then it will look non seperate, but leave it alone and the oil will come to the top.

If you know the answer to the second and third question please tell me.

Sorry, I don't really get your analogy. Can consciousness, like oil, separate itself from phenomena? But it's original state is mixed up with phenomena?

So it can exist without phenomena.

celticcrash

18AD wrote: »

Sorry, I don't really get your analogy. Can consciousness, like oil, separate itself from phenomena? But it's original state is mixed up with phenomena?

So it can exist without phenomena.

If a cow farts in the middle of a field does its gases mix with the air of the field?

recedite

BluntGuy wrote: »

It goes on to assume the Copenhagen interpretation of Q.M is true and deliberately doesn't bother to mention there are many others.

What is your opinion on the answer to the question; "Can consciousness have an effect on phenomena?" (just curious)

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

If a cow farts in the middle of a field does its gases mix with the air of the field?

Is that a rhetorical "yes" to each question?

So it's not like oil in water at all, it's like cow farts in the air?

So you can't separate consciousness from phenomena?

celticcrash

18AD wrote: »

Is that a rhetorical "yes" to each question?

So it's not like oil in water at all, it's like cow farts in the air?

So you can't separate consciousness from phenomena?

If you drink water does it become part of you or does it pass through you?

If a car drives up the road does it become part of the road?

If a person comes into your line of vision do they become part of you?

Just because phenomema comes into consciousness does not make it a part.

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

Just because phenomema comes into consciousness does not make it a part.

Ok. Phenomena are simultaneously in consciousness and not a part of consciousness. Right?

Do you think phenomena can exist outside of consciousness? Since they "come into" it, from somewhere else, I guess.

BluntGuy

recedite wrote: »

What is your opinion on the answer to the question; "Can consciousness have an effect on phenomena?" (just curious)

It depends on what you mean by this, I was simply addressing the butchering of quantum mechanics by a hack doctor. Are you asking "can simply having an awareness of a phenomena actively change the phenomena itself?" to which I would respond tautologically with whether or not you are aware of something you can effect change in it by performing an action which causes a change. Having an awareness of it might determine your actions. But that's... really just self-evident.

From what I can see, you are saying that if consciousness itself arises from "natural" means then it is not reliable to examine consciousness through natural means. But you've just decided this, and presented no other way through which we can examine consciousness.

Consciousness stays the same, it justs reflects the phenomena like a mirror.
If you smash a mirror image of an object it does not effect the object.
We chase after the mirror image and try to make it better.
All along forgetting thats its only an image, believing the image as the real thing.

Err what? Consciousness... reflects phenomena... but... we're only seeing reflected phenomena? So... the phenomena isn't altered by changing the reflection... but... if we smash it then... it stays the... what?

celticcrash

18AD wrote: »

So consciousness is completely separate from all phenomena? So you have consciousness without phenomena?

And also, can consciousness have an effect on phenomena?

18AD I would love to hear your opinions on these.
This is a second request. Sorry about my slow responces but I am a slave to phenomena. Also I have to learn to type as it gets frustrating not having the time to answer the questions in a proper manner.

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

18AD I would love to hear your opinions on these.
This is a second request. Sorry about my slow responces but I am a slave to phenomena. Also I have to learn to type as it gets frustrating not having the time to answer the questions in a proper manner.

No worries.

I'm pretty undecided on the whole issue. One remark is that I don't think you can have consciousness without phenomena. Whether that means consciousness is the phenomena I'm not so sure.

celticcrash

BluntGuy wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by this, I was simply addressing the butchering of quantum mechanics by a hack doctor. Are you asking "can simply having an awareness of a phenomena actively change the phenomena itself?" to which I would respond tautologically with whether or not you are aware of something you can effect change in it by performing an action which causes a change. Having an awareness of it might determine your actions. But that's... really just self-evident.

From what I can see, you are saying that if consciousness itself arises from "natural" means then it is not reliable to examine consciousness through natural means. But you've just decided this, and presented no other way through which we can examine consciousness.



Err what? Consciousness... reflects phenomena... but... we're only seeing reflected phenomena? So... the phenomena isn't altered by changing the reflection... but... if we smash it then... it stays the... what?

Yes I assumed that others would know this as self evident.

If consciousness itself arises from "natural" means, Where have I said this, I have not even got close to this. You have totally picked up this the wrong way.

Thats ok I assume all the time. I also assumed that 18AD would know that
To examine the mind consciousness or what ever you would to call it is that a person would have to learn to meditate.

I could type about this all day but it would be no good. It would only be words and more words, that can be broken down and end up going around and around in circles.