Atheist Realism?

[Enmos]

I wanted to say yellowness in fact it is what we experience : yelowness of the chair, of a ball...

Unconsciousness -> the state of being unconscious.
Yellowness -> the state of being yellow.
We cannot experience unconsciousness. (<- your claim)
Does unconsciousness exist ?
We cannot experience yellowness.
Does yellow exist ?

I have no definition, I said it is inefable
please give yours

Pick up a dictionary.

What ?

Huh ?

[Enmos]

I wanted to emphasize because for me it was not clear

I know what your game is from post 1. It's a particularly weak one.

[Enmos]

I told the evidence is consciousness
while you do not have any evidence of unconsciousness !

It is you who have to prove that unconscious reality can give rise to consciousness
or that unconscious state can be experienced (which is self-contradictory)

The color yellow exists.

[ronan]

Unconsciousness -> the state of being unconscious.
Yellowness -> the state of being yellow.
We cannot experience unconsciousness. (<- your claim)
Does unconsciousness exist ?
We cannot experience yellowness.
Does yellow exist ?

Now you talk about yellow or yellowness?
if you define Yellowness to be the state of being yellow. I agree we cannot experience yellowness
but we experience a yellow feeling in our consciousness, for me then we can can conclude that yellow feeling is one of our experience
while we cannot experience in anyway unconsciousness

Pick up a dictionary.

different dictionaries say different things
I would say:
consciousness is: "something that it is like" to be something

please give yours (why you do not want ?)

Huh ?

I was asking about (I don't know what you wanted to say) that:

Wtf is it with you and those guys ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscio...her_approaches

[ronan]

I know what your game is from post 1. It's a particularly weak one.

Can you elaborate?

[roxypoxy]

Crunchy Cat,
You are dreaming that you are not dreaming

[Crunchy Cat]

You still make the same mistake.
First, there are dreams that appears consistent, non contradictory and persistent until you wake up.
If you did not experienced them does not mean that nobody did.

Come to think of it, no dream appears to have those qualities. What happens is that people just kind of go with the flow in a dream because although they are conscious, all their mental processes are not running and full capacity (it kind of numbs their ability to think critically).

Second, Even if there was not maybe you are still in a dream that appears consistent, non-contradictory and persistent. and when you die you will realize it, but even after death, you would probably be in another dream, the point is that YOU CANNOT KNOW.

I do now of course. If reality were a dream that 'appeared' consistent, non-contradictory, and persistent then a little observation with critical thinking would uncover that. For example, in a dream I can look at my watch. One moment it says "5:15", the next "55:40978", and then the next "Space Invaders". Within the dream I can idenity that behavior and realize I am dreaming. Reality shares no such behavior.

some time in waking state you are tricked by hallucination or optical illusion and it is after that you realize that they were illusion and hallucination that you consider them as such.

I agree. Optical illusions are simply interprative misrepresentations and the underlying mechanics can be identified and shown to be consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Hallucination are interpretive overlays generated internally and are inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory; hence, they can also be spotted during the event rather than after.

For the case of that your dream would need a lot amount of energy, ok and what ? if all our scientific knowledge are about a dream, maybe other laws would apply in the "real" world, which is maybe another dream...

That much energy would annihilate anything in its vicinity. It doesn't matter what kind of laws might apply in the "real" world, stuffing 10^1000^1000^1000^1000^1000... (do the exponent for several trillion years) units of any form of energy into your "real head" is going to vaproize you (not to mention that much energy is beyond containment).

The point is still there and will be always there,
You are maybe dreaming in the sense that there is the possibility that you will wake up one day and realize the inconsistency and contradiction and non-persistence of your believed consistent, non contradictory and persistent reality

That's not even a possibility. I can willfully examine anything in reality and repeadtly find the exact same consistency, persistency, and non-contradictory-ness. The same doesn't apply to a dream (from within a dream) and you know it. I can wilfully turn my consciousness on and off in reality. The same doesn't apply to a dream (from within a dream) and you know it. My energy requirements for existing in reality and generating dreams are miniscule and correct. For reality to actually be a dream requires more energy that can be contained / survived. Dreaming has very specific functionality to enhance human survival. There is no rational reason as to how reality being a dream would actually be functional.

Any way you look at it, the notion you are proposing is both false and not possible. At best it makes for fun science fiction media.

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,
You are dreaming that you are not dreaming

If I was a philosopher, that might bother me .

[ronan]

I do now of course. If reality were a dream that 'appeared' consistent, non-contradictory, and persistent then a little observation with critical thinking would uncover that. For example, in a dream I can look at my watch. One moment it says "5:15", the next "55:40978", and then the next "Space Invaders". Within the dream I can idenity that behavior and realize I am dreaming.

While you cannot imagine a dream that is consistent , non contradictory and persistent (until you wake up or realize that it is?) maybe it is possible.
You have to prove that it is not possible (you cannot use the fact that every night it never happen because you are not eternal and maybe the dream that is consistent,etc. is the one you are experiencing when you believe you are awake)
If you experienced dreams that for 1 second you believed it was real
why cannot you imagine that there is dream that take 1 life to realize that it was a dream?

Reality shares no such behavior.

but only until you find such behavior (An if you did not find it does not mean that there is not) so your argument is not valid

I agree. Optical illusions are simply interprative misrepresentations and the underlying mechanics can be identified and shown to be consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Hallucination are interpretive overlays generated internally and are inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory; hence, they can also be spotted during the event rather than after.

But it is only after you REALIZE that it was a hallucination that you KNOW that it was an hallucination (self evident)

That much energy would annihilate anything in its vicinity. It doesn't matter what kind of laws might apply in the "real" world, stuffing 10^1000^1000^1000^1000^1000... (do the exponent for several trillion years) units of any form of energy into your "real head" is going to vaproize you (not to mention that much energy is beyond containment).

Do not talk about something you cannot know because as I said you are maybe in a dream

That's not even a possibility. I can willfully examine anything in reality and repeadtly find the exact same consistency, persistency, and non-contradictory-ness.

until you realize (same as in dream) but you did not realize

Any way you look at it, the notion you are proposing is both false and not possible. At best it makes for fun science fiction media.

Which specific notion?
And tell me why it is false if it is so evident for you, that should not take long


Note about your pseudo argument against the fact that you are maybe dreaming:
Don't you realize that all your argument are based on the content of what I qualify to be maybe a dream?
These argument cannot be valid if you are dreaming
indeed if you are in fact dreaming your argument are not valid, while if you are right it is not a proof because you could have been dreaming. you need a external argument.

In other words: you assume that you are not dreaming and then from that you conclude that you are not dreaming.

It is not enough, it is a circular argument

While me, I only said that you cannot know that you are dreaming or not.
I don't say you arr not dreaming neither I say that you are dreaming.
The proof have to be given by you but if you think enough you will see that it is not possible to prove that because all your evidence reside in your experiences (which can be dream or not)

Is there nobody here in this forum that know about the dreaming problem ?
I am quite surprise of hearing Crunchy Cat talking as he knew that he was not dreaming while all his argument are based on the content of his dream (or not) (what he experiences: brain, humans...).

[roxypoxy]

If I was a philosopher, that might bother me .

its so simple..i am sorry that u cant understand. ther is nothing philosophical. men often do not see what is obvious. thats what i meant!!!
secondly it is not strange in what we belive. like u believe that u are not dreaming which is a dream again .reason is that it is not in ur control. u just imagine it. thats it.

when u cant answer u say that other one a philosopher thats just incompetence..nothing else. don't misquote any person or subject. be unbiased and judge for urself.

[Myles]

While you cannot imagine a dream that is consistent , non contradictory and persistent (until you wake up or realize that it is?) maybe it is possible.
You have to prove that it is not possible (you cannot use the fact that every night it never happen because you are not eternal and maybe the dream that is consistent,etc. is the one you are experiencing when you believe you are awake)
If you experienced dreams that for 1 second you believed it was real
why cannot you imagine that there is dream that take 1 life to realize that it was a dream?

but only until you find such behavior (An if you did not find it does not mean that there is not) so your argument is not valid


But it is only after you REALIZE that it was a hallucination that you KNOW that it was an hallucination (self evident)


Do not talk about something you cannot know because as I said you are maybe in a dream


until you realize (same as in dream) but you did not realize



Which specific notion?
And tell me why it is false if it is so evident for you, that should not take long


Note about your pseudo argument against the fact that you are maybe dreaming:
Don't you realize that all your argument are based on the content of what I qualify to be maybe a dream?
These argument cannot be valid if you are dreaming
indeed if you are in fact dreaming your argument are not valid, while if you are right it is not a proof because you could have been dreaming. you need a external argument.

In other words: you assume that you are not dreaming and then from that you conclude that you are not dreaming.

It is not enough, it is a circular argument

While me, I only said that you cannot know that you are dreaming or not.
I don't say you arr not dreaming neither I say that you are dreaming.
The proof have to be given by you but if you think enough you will see that it is not possible to prove that because all your evidence reside in your experiences (which can be dream or not)

Is there nobody here in this forum that know about the dreaming problem ?
I am quite surprise of hearing Crunchy Cat talking as he knew that he was not dreaming while all his argument are based on the content of his dream (or not) (what he experiences: brain, humans...).

I didn't even know there was a dreaming problem. Read Descartes !


For a scientific perspective, try reading about lucid dreaming under controlled conditions.

[Enmos]

Now you talk about yellow or yellowness?
if you define Yellowness to be the state of being yellow. I agree we cannot experience yellowness

If you cannot see the analogy you are lost.
So you agree we cannot experience yellowness. Does yellow then exist or not ?

but we experience a yellow feeling in our consciousness, for me then we can can conclude that yellow feeling is one of our experience
while we cannot experience in anyway unconsciousness

A yellow feeling.. ?

different dictionaries say different things
I would say:
consciousness is: "something that it is like" to be something

please give yours (why you do not want ?)

Sure,

Consciousness: The state of being conscious.

Conscious: Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

I was asking about (I don't know what you wanted to say) that:

Never mind that.

[Myles]

eternal mean that it was always there, no need to come from somewhere

So why is that not possible for the universe, leaving god out of the picture as an unnecessary addition ?

[Enmos]

Can you elaborate?

You are proposing that God hides in objective reality.

[Cris]

Ronan,

While me, I only said that you cannot know that you are dreaming or not.
I don't say you arr not dreaming neither I say that you are dreaming.
The proof have to be given by you but if you think enough you will see that it is not possible to prove that because all your evidence reside in your experiences (which can be dream or not)

That and related quotes ….

Dreaming is not an alternate state of awareness that can be mistaken for an awake state for normal people. The dream state and waking consciousness are significantly qualitatively different that we do not confuse them. Implying that we cannot tell the difference is patently false.

[lightgigantic]

Ronan,

That and related quotes ….

Dreaming is not an alternate state of awareness that can be mistaken for an awake state for normal people. The dream state and waking consciousness are significantly qualitatively different that we do not confuse them. Implying that we cannot tell the difference is patently false.

when you are dreaming, what standards of reality do you call upon to assert that you are in fact only dreaming?

[Cris]

Ronan,

eternal mean that it was always there, no need to come from somewhere

This is close to the realization that an infinite past must be true. The reasoning is that if there was ever a time when nothing existed then there would be nothing to cause anything to follow. I.e. something must have always existed otherwise we could not be here. However, we have no reason to conclude that “reality” (whatever you choose that to mean), has godlike properties or not.

You should open your horizon, there are many kind of god, one of them is that reality is god.

It is somewhat condescending to request someone to broaden their views and follow it with a baseless assertion, as if your claim to superiority should be sufficient proof. You haven’t made your case yet so I would recommend you restrain yourself from insinuating others are narrow minded and look to your own narrow minded view that god is the only answer and seriously consider broadening your horizon to consider alternatives.

I do not see any reasoned argument here that bridges the chasm between various aspects of what is meant by reality to the quantum leap assertion that reality is a god.

consciousness is complex, why you say that? consciousness is simply there, what is compelx is brain processes.

The best we can project right now is that consciousness is a gestalt experience that occurs beyond a particular threshold of escalating neural complexity and interaction. I have no idea what you are talking about, that the brain and consciousness are somehow separate? Our problem right now is explaining consciousness. It is indeed a very complex issue.

Note that Nagle, Jackson, and Chalmers, deliberately attempt to limit the scope of science and make the erroneous conclusion that consciousness can never be explained by science. History is littered with authority figures asserting an event can never occur, only to see that very event occur later.

reality IS god

Unsupported assertion. A worthless statement.

my point is that reality is conscious because else we could not have consciousness.

Gibberish. A complete non sequitur.

[Cris]

lg,

when you are dreaming, what standards of reality do you call upon to assert that you are in fact only dreaming?

How could I do any such thing when I'm not conscious. What do you mean by reality?

[lightgigantic]

lg,

How could I do any such thing when I'm not conscious.

you never dream when you sleep?

What do you mean by reality?

you said

The dream state and waking consciousness are significantly qualitatively different


so what is the qualitative difference you experience in a dreaming state to indicate that you are in fact only dreaming
?

[ronan]

I didn't even know there was a dreaming problem. Read Descartes !

That is exactly what I am saying, He is the one famous for saying that we are maybe dreaming and the only way he could say that he was not is was by postulating an external god. (which I don't and you don't.
you should read Descartes

For a scientific perspective, try reading about lucid dreaming under controlled conditions.

Lucid dream are interesting, but it does not mean that what you say is not a dream can finnally become a lucid dream.