Consciousness, Materialism and Idealism

[walterpthefirst]

@walterpthefirst I'm disappointed that you would want to see a fellow ExChristian leave this community. This type of display will not make anyone want to join our ranks. It is OK to agree to disagree before it gets to this point. Everyone involved in this conversation have made great contributions to this community and I would hate to see anyone leave. Including you. We shouldn't let ourselves get to this point amongst ourselves. I feel that we can be better than that. 

 

 

DB,

 

Your accusation that I wanted Josh to depart is simply not true. 

 

If I have to I can call upon another member to vouch for me that I did not want this outcome.  This member and I discussed things privately before Josh and I got into the depths of our debate.  I was advised by this member that it would probably be best if Josh and I discussed things privately too, out of the public eye.  Given the fact that we would be talking about things that were clearly important to Josh and not wishing to alienate or antagonize him, I agreed to that. 

 

But when I was talking about similar matters with midniterider and Weezer in the public thread Josh came in and began debating them openly, before I could tackle him privately.  Perhaps this was a mistake on my part, but I took Josh's willingness to take part in a public discussion as an indication that I didn't need to talk with him via a private back-channel.  So, I proceeded with the debate publicly. 

 

That might have been an error of judgment on my part, but what you should not conclude from this episode DB is that I wanted to see him go.  That was never my intention and never my aim.  I hope that you can accept that and modify your view of me accordingly. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I'm sorry to see you go Josh, but your departure does solve one problem that was revealed in our discussion.

 

Specifically, that you were so wedded to your beliefs that you were prepared to make stuff up in our debate.

 

Which meant that in the future that if we challenged a Christian, saying that they were just making shit up, they could point to you doing the same.

 

So how can we Ex-Christians, atheists, agnostics and sceptics demonstrate that we think more clearly and conduct ourselves more honestly than the Christians if we behave just like them? 

This is what I was referring to. Once you said it solves one problem then it sounds like you're really ok with him going. I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning. but realize I'm from the American south and here a good insult can be started with the phrase "Bless your heart". 

[walterpthefirst]

37 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

This is what I was referring to. Once you said it solves one problem then it sounds like you're really ok with him going. I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning. but realize I'm from the American south and here a good insult can be started with the phrase "Bless your heart". 

 

Ah yes, now I can see how you might have read that, DB.

 

 

Well, there was no insult intended there, nor even any gladness on my part that Josh was leaving.  My concern was for the good of the Ex-Christian community.  Perhaps you may not agree, but I thought that it would problematic for the forum if one of the Moderators was on record as saying that he made up stuff in a debate.  That would be giving ammunition to the visiting Christian apologists.  They could then say with good reason that this forum was not a level playing field, where they could expect a fair hearing.  That the Moderators themselves were not abiding by the proper rules of debate.  That they were making stuff up as they went along.

 

Josh's departure solves this problem. 

 

It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to say this, DB.  I would have preferred that this whole episode had turned out better.  But Josh is his own man and he must beat his own path.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Josh's departure solves this problem. 

 

It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to say this, DB.  I would have preferred that this whole episode had turned out better.  But Josh is his own man and he must beat his own path

Well thankfully I don't believe Josh has left yet. Hopefully yall can just cool down, work it out, and level heads can prevail. Like I said I didn't read all the posts. So I don't know what made up information you were referring to and don't care to, as I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject you two were discussing. I just wanted to jump in and try to calm the storm and hopefully convince Josh not to leave. We all have our rolls to play here in helping those leaving Christianity. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

Yes, let us hope for the best here, DB.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

We are the other option to Christianity. Us being on this forum can show others that it is OK to still believe in something after they have realized Christianity is a lie. There is no reason not to explore other beliefs and possibilities. 

 

 

 

I agree we should be able to explore other beliefs and possibilities...without the presupposition that evidence is required in order to post.

 

It would be nice to have a philosophy subforum but I assume it would do about as well as the Spirituality section. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

I agree we should be able to explore other beliefs and possibilities...without the presupposition that evidence is required in order to post.

 

It would be nice to have a philosophy subforum but I assume it would do about as well as the Spirituality section. 

We have one:

 

 

[midniterider]

Ok , my big mouth spoke too soon. Will take a look.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But when I was talking about similar matters with midniterider and Weezer in the public thread Josh came in and began debating them openly, before I could tackle him privately.  Perhaps this was a mistake on my part, but I took Josh's willingness to take part in a public discussion as an indication that I didn't need to talk with him via a private back-channel.  So, I proceeded with the debate publicly. 

 

I was assuming it was a public discussion since the original 2 were no longer posting, and others had joined in.  And frankly I never realized Josh was "debating" with me.  

 

Due to my lack of scientific background I wasn't able to follow everything posted, but am VERY interested in the possibility of "universal consciousness" (if that is the proper term).  I, and I believe a lot of other ex-christians believe there is something "out there" beyond what science can measure.  And maybe with more people probing around like Josh is doing, someone can find something.  Perhaps even some procedure to "measure" things that science presently does not know how to measure.  Perhaps the shadows in the cave??   Is science a complete and perfect concept that can't be improved?  If you aren't willing to step outside it, how will you ever know??  Not being willing to srep outside sounds like sciencism.  

 

I hope the consciousness discussion (without the strict rules of scientific debate) will continue.   

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We have one:

 

 

STEP UP AND BE THE FIRST CLUB MEMBER!  

 

Would it get more traffic in the regular forums section?  And speaking of traffic, not many cars are turning in the driveway these days.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

STEP UP AND BE THE FIRST CLUB MEMBER!  

 

Would it get more traffic in the regular forums section?  And speaking of traffic, not many cars are turning in the driveway these days.

 

I'm posting something there. 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

I was assuming it was a public discussion since the original 2 were no longer posting, and others had joined in.  And frankly I never realized Josh was "debating" with me.  

 

Due to my lack of scientific background I wasn't able to follow everything posted, but am VERY interested in the possibility of "universal consciousness" (if that is the proper term).  I, and I believe a lot of other ex-christians believe there is something "out there" beyond what science can measure.  And maybe with more people probing around like Josh is doing, someone can find something.  Perhaps even some procedure to "measure" things that science presently does not know how to measure.  Perhaps the shadows in the cave??   Is science a complete and perfect concept that can't be improved?  If you aren't willing to step outside it, how will you ever know??  Not being willing to srep outside sounds like sciencism.  

 

I hope the consciousness discussion (without the strict rules of scientific debate) will continue.   

 

I dont have a scientific background either. It isn't required to wonder about stuff like this. It does help to have a bit of knowledge of Zen Buddhism... and if I recall Zen is tied closely to motorcycle repair. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry/dp/0060589469

 

So I think you are good to go.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

I was assuming it was a public discussion since the original 2 were no longer posting, and others had joined in.  And frankly I never realized Josh was "debating" with me.  

 

Due to my lack of scientific background I wasn't able to follow everything posted, but am VERY interested in the possibility of "universal consciousness" (if that is the proper term).  I, and I believe a lot of other ex-christians believe there is something "out there" beyond what science can measure.  And maybe with more people probing around like Josh is doing, someone can find something.  Perhaps even some procedure to "measure" things that science presently does not know how to measure.  Perhaps the shadows in the cave??   Is science a complete and perfect concept that can't be improved?  If you aren't willing to step outside it, how will you ever know??  Not being willing to srep outside sounds like sciencism.  

 

I hope the consciousness discussion (without the strict rules of scientific debate) will continue.   

 

I hear your concerns Weezer.  But let me clarify a few things.

 

I've already explained to Dark Bishop that I do not agree with Scientism and I do not hold to it.  Therefore, when Josh and I were talking about Hoffman's Fitness Based Theory of Evolution I kept asking him for scientific evidence for it.  Doing that is not scientism on my part.  If someone makes a scientific claim then they have to support that scientific claim with scientific evidence.  

 

They cannot support that claim with philosophy or metaphysics because those are two disciplines that work in different ways to science.  The evidence must be appropriate to the claim being made.  Can you see that?

 

Furthermore, if we relax our baseline scepticism and allow people to make claims that are unsupported by evidence, then the visiting Christian apologists will take note and use that to their advantage.  They will say that they don't need to support their claims about Jesus with evidence because we Ex-Christians don't support our claims about universal consciousness with evidence.  They would say that this forum is not being fair on them - and they would be right.

 

I tried to explain this earlier in thread when I asked if we should be as severe with ourselves as we are with the Christians.  This is the price we pay for being unremittingly hard on the Christians about evidence.  If we are hard on them, then for the sake of fairness, we have to be just as hard on ourselves.  I hope you can see that too.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Furthermore, if we relax our baseline scepticism and allow people to make claims that are unsupported by evidence, then the visiting Christian apologists will take note and use that to their advantage.  They will say that they don't need to support their claims about Jesus with evidence because we Ex-Christians don't support our claims about universal consciousness with evidence.  They would say that this forum is not being fair on them - and they would be right.

 

The way I see it is that religion or "spiritual" matters are not scientific issues.  And at this time, if  universal consciousness exists, it can't be measured in any way we know of, so I would put it into the "spiritual" box. So why even try to argue it one way or the other with science? 

 

And as far as religion goes, using science to argue with people who believe in magic is like farting against the wind.  To me, using logic is the best way to argue the issues.  

 

And these are not life and death issues (or loosing your soul for eternity) so why not relax a bit and have some fun?

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

The way I see it is that religion or "spiritual" matters are not scientific issues.  And at this time, if  universal consciousness exists, it can't be measured in any way we know of, so I would put it into the "spiritual" box. So why even try to argue it one way or the other with science? 

 

And as far as religion goes, using science to argue with people who believe in magic is like farting against the wind.  To me, using logic is the best way to argue the issues.  

 

And these are not life and death issues (or loosing your soul for eternity) so why not relax a bit and have some fun?

 

And I totally agree with you, Weezer.  100%

 

But please consider this.

 

By claiming Hoffman had a science-based approach to this Josh brought the debate under the scientific spotlight.  This made whatever he said or claimed about Hoffman open to rigorous and sceptical inquiry.  He made it fair game for anyone (not just me) to be sceptical of his claims and to press him for evidence.

 

If it helps, please recall the many instances where Christians come here and claim that science supports their religious, supernatural and spiritual beliefs.  And so the same thing happens.  They have made claims that fall under the scientific purview and so they have opened themselves up to the same kind of rigorous and sceptical inquiries that were put to Josh.

 

Therefore, if I'd been easy on Josh but hard on the Christians I'd be displaying bias and treating them differently. And as I tried to explain before, visiting Christians might notice this and this forum's reputation for fairness and honesty would suffer accordingly.  Yes, it's a high price to pay, but we must be seen to be fair and even-handed to ALL parties, regardless of who they are. 

 

Another relevant point is that the Lion's Den is a place of debate where the gloves are off.  Those who go there and make claims should expect to be held accountable for those claims - regardless of whether they are a Christian, an Ex-Christian, a pagan, an atheist or anything else.  That's being fair to all, isn't it?

 

But now we know that there IS a place in this forum where we can relax and have fun.  The Philosophy Club!  I haven't checked it out properly yet but if you want a 'lighter' approach Weezer, why not see if that's the place to do it?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:18 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

Anyone I care to know is already on my facebook and I bid you all a farewell.

 

Is this really the Josh I have been following??  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

Is this really the Josh I have been following??  

Perhaps it is just a representative entity within your own consciousness that you have been following; but it raises an interesting point.  I can be certain that my own consciousness exists; but one point at which I have come to diverge from Josh is the idea that I can be certain only about my own consciousness or experience.  To be sure, I am absolutely certain that my own consciousness exists; but within my own consciousness there exists a Walt entity.  This Walt entity thinks differently than I do.  This Walt entity misspells certain words, such as "skeptic" and "color," which I spell correctly.   This Walt entity often speaks of experiences I have never had in places I have never been.  In fact, this Walt entity is different enough from my own conscious representation that I have good reason to be certain that this Walt entity is, indeed, a distinct consciousness of its own.

 

The one thing about which I cannot be certain, however (and here again, is a philosophical question which someone smarter than me should answer), is whether this Walt entity is a completely separate consciousness or if it is simply a representative consciousness that exists within my own, perhaps in a sort of compartment within my conscious experience or as an extension of it.  But I can be certain that, within my own consciousness, the Walt entity is distinct from the John entity; and both again are distinct from the TABA entity. 

 

I'm sure this Walt entity might well post here and say, "No, no!  I really do exist as a separate, unique, and individual consciousness!  I even have corporeal form!"  I would, naturally, have to remain... colorfully skeptical.  The human consciousness, as far as I can tell, is full of mysteries, uncertainties, and even absurdities.  And I can imagine that is just what my consciousness would persuade me to perceive as something that the Walt entity would say.

 

So, I can be certain that my own consciousness exists; but I can also be certain that the consciousness represented by the Walt entity exists as well, at least as a distinct consciousness from my own.  And this speaks to the oneness, the interconnectedness, of everything.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I won't say that the oneness, or interconnectedness, is self-evident.  Were it so, the dualistic mentality would not have shown such dogged tenacity.  What I will say is that there are many different ways of looking at the interconnectedness.  Science is one way of looking at it; philosophy is another.  And science and philosophy are interconnected. 

 

Science is itself a microcosm of the interconnectedness; and no single scientific discipline can be complete without the others.  Biochemistry is directly connected to Molecular Biology.  Molecular Biology is directly connected to Genetics.  Genetics is directly connected to Biology... But if we go in the opposite direction, we see that Biochemistry is directly connected to Physics; and even further along, we see the connection to Astronomy and even Cosmology.  I cannot exist without a single cell, which cannot exist without a dying star billions of years ago...

 

But what is life?  Were someone to ask me as a scientist, I might explain biological homeostasis, mitosis and meiosis, or the reproduction cycles of lemurs and lemmings.  But not even a scientist like myself is genuinely satisfied with that as an answer to the question.  There simply must be something more to life than the eating, shitting, and fucking that science can explain. 

 

And this is where philosophy begins to take over.  In every scientific discipline, there comes a point at which science does not have adequate answers to the questions put forth.  Indeed, many of these questions are raised by science itself; for the more science teaches us, the more we realize we simply do not know... and the more questions are raised in response. 

 

This is why philosophy will never replace science.  Science and philosophy are forever intertwined in a mutually beneficial symbiosis.  Because the more we discover, the less we understand.  Indeed, to be a true scientist is to also be a philosopher.  We're just looking for the answers in petri dishes and flow cytometers instead of dusty old books and Socratic Methods.

 

Carl Sagan once stared that we (our individual consciousnesses) are the universe exploring itself.  Did he make this claim as a scientist?  Or as a philosopher?  Or did he simply, in that moment in time, perfectly describe the interconnectedness that both science and philosophy reveal?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

for the more science teaches us, the more we realize we simply do not know... and the more questions are raised in response. 

 

That statement I think I understand.  Is there any end to the questions?  Any end to the existence that we question??  The more I study, the more I realize I do not know.  And I just keep laying out the possibilities for consideration. And the volume of possibilities for consideration is heaping up and running over.    And our egos don't like to admit that we do not have all the answers.  

 

By the way!  Where is that tree of knowledge located???

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps it is just a representative entity within your own consciousness that you have been following; but it raises an interesting point.  I can be certain that my own consciousness exists; but one point at which I have come to diverge from Josh is the idea that I can be certain only about my own consciousness or experience.  To be sure, I am absolutely certain that my own consciousness exists; but within my own consciousness there exists a Walt entity.  This Walt entity thinks differently than I do.  This Walt entity misspells certain words, such as "skeptic" and "color," which I spell correctly.   This Walt entity often speaks of experiences I have never had in places I have never been.  In fact, this Walt entity is different enough from my own conscious representation that I have good reason to be certain that this Walt entity is, indeed, a distinct consciousness of its own.

 

The one thing about which I cannot be certain, however (and here again, is a philosophical question which someone smarter than me should answer), is whether this Walt entity is a completely separate consciousness or if it is simply a representative consciousness that exists within my own, perhaps in a sort of compartment within my conscious experience or as an extension of it.  But I can be certain that, within my own consciousness, the Walt entity is distinct from the John entity; and both again are distinct from the TABA entity. 

 

I'm sure this Walt entity might well post here and say, "No, no!  I really do exist as a separate, unique, and individual consciousness!  I even have corporeal form!"  I would, naturally, have to remain... colorfully skeptical.  The human consciousness, as far as I can tell, is full of mysteries, uncertainties, and even absurdities.  And I can imagine that is just what my consciousness would persuade me to perceive as something that the Walt entity would say.

 

So, I can be certain that my own consciousness exists; but I can also be certain that the consciousness represented by the Walt entity exists as well, at least as a distinct consciousness from my own.  And this speaks to the oneness, the interconnectedness, of everything.

 

The Walt entity realised that Josh was treating the existence of his own conscious experience of reality as a self evident truth, so the Walt entity looked that up.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

 

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof, and/or by ordinary human reason.

Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most others, one's belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident.

The following proposition is often said to be self-evident: "A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts".

A logical argument for a self-evident conclusion would demonstrate only an ignorance of the purpose of persuasively arguing for the conclusion based on one or more premises that differ from it (see ignoratio elenchi and begging the question).

 

If we take the above as authoritative Prof, then the only thing that is self-evident to you is the existence of your own conscious experience of reality.  Which would mean that your experience of the Walt entity is not a self-evident truth. 

 

And here is where Josh and I disagreed.  For me, if something is not a self evident truth then it requires evidence to support or confirm its existence.  But Josh thought that my request for such evidence was incoherent.

 

If I read things correctly, this is where Josh tripped himself up.  He treated the existence of his own consciousness as a self-evident truth and then also treated the existence of other CA's (conscious agents) in the same way.  But, as the Wiki page confirms, while he could validly do the former he could not validly do the latter.

 

And since he was unwilling to provide any evidence for the existence of these other CA's, we came to a kind of stalemate.  Sadly.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walt Entity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

My own consciousness is self-evident to me; I don't know how else it could be or by what manner of evidence I would attempt to persuade myself of its existence.  But I have no way of knowing if my own consciousness is self-evident to anyone else or not.  How could I?  I don't even know anyone else exists until we meet; and then there's a fair amount of evidence for both of us.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most others, one's belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident.

This is why I can never be certain whether the Walt entity is a completely separate consciousness or just a representative consciousness that exists within my own.  I know it is distinct from my own representation; but separate?  No idea, really.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is why I can never be certain whether the Walt entity is a completely separate consciousness or just a representative consciousness that exists within my own.  I know it is distinct from my own representation; but separate?  No idea, really.

 

My own consciousness is self-evident to me; I don't know how else it could be or by what manner of evidence I would attempt to persuade myself of its existence.  But I have no way of knowing if my own consciousness is self-evident to anyone else or not.  How could I?  I don't even know anyone else exists until we meet; and then there's a fair amount of evidence for both of us.  

 

 

I quite agree Red entity.

 

And perhaps this is where you and I and the Josh entity diverge.  Using the allegory of Plato's cave Josh would probably assert that you don't really know that anyone else exists, even if you meet them.  That any sense experience beyond your conscious experience of your own self is just a 'representation', a shadow play on the wall of the cave.  Not reality itself but just a blurred depiction of reality. 

 

It's too late now, but if he had put that to me, I'd have responded by saying that he might hold to that notion, but he doesn't live that way.  He probably treats everyone he meets as entirely real and treats nobody he meets as just a flickering 2-dimensional shadow.  I've encountered this kind of disconnect before, right here in this forum.

 

Christians sometimes claim to be anti-science because science doesn't agree with what the bible says about creation and the origin of humans.  And yet, just as I've recently pointed out to aik, they rely on science just as much as we atheists, agnostics and sceptics (skeptics?) do.  So their words ring hollow because they do not practice what they preach.

 

If they really were anti-science and living biblically we'd never hear from them.  Instead they'd be living in the wilderness, far away from the influence of science and eating manna every morning. Or doing like John the Baptist, dressing in camel skins and surviving on locusts and honey.

 

And the same kind of disconnect is probably true in Josh's life.  He may preach that the only true reality for him is his own consciousness, but I'd lay good money that he doesn't live like that.  And unless a person's deeds line up with what they say then that tells me there's a problem.  They may genuinely be oblivious to the problem and may genuinely believe that what they write is true.  But that doesn't make the problem go away.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

That statement I think I understand.  Is there any end to the questions?  Any end to the existence that we question??  The more I study, the more I realize I do not know.  And I just keep laying out the possibilities for consideration. And the volume of possibilities for consideration is heaping up and running over.    And our egos don't like to admit that we do not have all the answers.  

 

By the way!  Where is that tree of knowledge located???

 

 

 

Perhaps this will help, Weezer?

 

 

Pretend that everything we know about reality is represented by the area inside a small circle drawn on a flat piece of paper.  Everything we know is inside the circle and everything we don't know is outside the circle.  As we discover more and more about reality, the circle gets bigger.  But as it does so, the circumference of the circle, the boundary between what we do know and what we don't know, also gets bigger.  This means that the number of questions we have to ask to discover more increases as the circumference of the circle increases.  Therefore, in this model, there is never any end to the quest for more knowledge and better understanding.  Nor is there any end or any reduction to the number of questions we need to ask.  

 

My thanks to John Gribbin for this.  I'm not smart enough to have come up with this myself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is why neither science nor philosophy will ever displace the other.  The two too often inform each other.  Both set about to answer the same questions, but from different angles.  And each answer raises more questions.  Moreover, the answers provided by science inform the questions posed by philosophy.   And vice-versa.  Science says, "We can now manipulate genetic sequences and ensure your baby will be a blue-eyed boy with blonde hair and a finely cut jib."

 

Philosophy asks, "Should we?"

 

Some answers, on the surface, seem easier than others.  Can we manipulate the DNA to eradicate trisomy-21?  Can we identify and eliminate birth defects en utero?  Science can answer with data; but, just as science is agnostic concerning the spiritual, science is generally amoral concerning the effects of the discoveries it makes.  There are exceptions, of course.  Tesla's death ray comes to mind.  As such, science needs philosophy to inform the morality and ethics.  Science has awesome potential--both for destructive ability and creative.  Philosophy, hopefully, keeps science guided more towards the creative and away from the destructive.  Until profit margins are introduced, anyway.  Unfortunately.