Atheist Realism?

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

Thank you for your clarifications.

Riddle me this: Can you imagine a colour not unlike any colour you have experienced? That is, not a shade, but an entirely new colour? Let us call it "Aethrange"?

[ronan]

You mean a colour NOT LIKE any colour that I have experienced?

No

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

You mean a colour NOT LIKE any colour that I have experienced?

No

Yes, precisely.

So you cannot envision Aetherage. All right.

But you can imagine (and perceive) the visible spectrum (Roy G Biv), correct?

Now consider what this entails. You need to experience something of this sort before you can imagine it. Why is this so, if consciousness is all that is? If consciousness were absolute, it would stand to reason that consciousness would contain all there is without a need to be sparked by accidental occurences (coming into contact with coloured objects). But as there are accidents necessary for the content of our mind, does not this imply that unconscious things (colour) need to impact our consciousness in order to produce certain capacities of imagination and perception? As such, consciousness loses its quality of idealism and becomes, at best, dualistic.

[ronan]

Ronan:



Yes, precisely.

So you cannot envision Aetherage. All right.

But you can imagine (and perceive) the visible spectrum (Roy G Biv), correct?

Now consider what this entails. You need to experience something of this sort before you can imagine it. Why is this so, if consciousness is all that is? If consciousness were absolute, it would stand to reason that consciousness would contain all there is without a need to be sparked by accidental occurences (coming into contact with coloured objects). But as there are accidents necessary for the content of our mind, does not this imply that unconscious things (colour) need to impact our consciousness in order to produce certain capacities of imagination and perception? As such, consciousness loses its quality of idealism and becomes, at best, dualistic.

No

For the simple reason that if I could see colors that other humans would not see I would loose my humanity and thus my identity.

I exist in the dream as a human because I believe I exist as a human
if I could see other colors I would not be a human and thus I would live in an other dream that where I am now

Please remember consciousness is not me.
consciousness is beyond myself.

It could includes indeed everything.

In this case, the argument you put forward apply only to the ego, not to consciousness itself.

[Prince_James]

Well let us extrapolate to consciousness itself.

But first, let me ask you this:

Do you agree that the Ego and Consciousness share similar properties, but magnified? That the mind of man is the same, but on a far lower scale, as the Mind of God (as it were)?

[ronan]

Well let us extrapolate to consciousness itself.

You have to justify it

But first, let me ask you this:

Do you agree that the Ego and Consciousness share similar properties, but magnified? That the mind of man is the same, but on a far lower scale, as the Mind of God (as it were)?

Ego is a content of consciousness, it is thus not the same.

consciousness contains all potential ego.

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

Ego is a content of consciousness, it is thus not the same.

consciousness contains all potential ego.

Can you clarify this?

And am I right in assuming you think that reality is essentially the Mind of God?

[ronan]

Ronan:

Can you clarify this?

Ego is what you perceive you are, it is thus a perception and this perception have a perceiver, so this ego is not the perceiver itself.

When I say that consciousness contains all potential ego, I want to say that your ego, my ego are perceived, they are thus content of consciousness

And am I right in assuming you think that reality is essentially the Mind of God?

Hmmm...
Mind is an ambiguous word.
For me God (also an ambiguous word) is consciousness itself but not the content (perceptions)

It follows that God (=consciousness) can not be perceived.

Reality, is a word with basically two usages:
1) referring to the world of perceptions (this banana is real, I can eat it)
2) referring to what is behind our perceptions. (Kant's noumena)

For me when I talk about reality, I talk about this reality behind our perceptions (2) and for me it is consciousness itself.

Hence, Consciousness=Reality=God

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

Ego is what you perceive you are, it is thus a perception and this perception have a perceiver, so this ego is not the perceiver itself.

What about the perceiver? I assume this is equivalent to the Cartesian ego, rather than the normal ego?

When I say that consciousness contains all potential ego, I want to say that your ego, my ego are perceived, they are thus content of consciousness

Content of what consciousness? Our own?

It follows that God (=consciousness) can not be perceived.

How so?

[ronan]

Content of what consciousness? Our own?

There is only one consciousness, one reality, one god

How so?

Whenever you believe to perceive a perceiver, there is always a perceiver you do not perceive, namely the one who perceive the perceiver

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

There is only one consciousness, one reality, one god

So when you speak of Consciousness, it is the consciousness of "God".

Whenever you believe to perceive a perceiver, there is always a perceiver you do not perceive, namely the one who perceive the perceiver

Okay.

But let me ask you this, does Consciousness function similarly to human consciousness?

[ronan]

Ronan:



So when you speak of Consciousness, it is the consciousness of "God".

No,
consciousness is god, consciousness=god

Okay.

But let me ask you this, does Consciousness function similarly to human consciousness?

What do you mean by "human consciousness" ?

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

No,
consciousness is god, consciousness=god

Okay, fair enough.

What do you mean by "human consciousness" ?

Perception as viewed by human egos. In essence: Our minds.

[ronan]

Ronan:



Okay, fair enough.



Perception as viewed by human egos. In essence: Our minds.

If "human consciousness" is perceptions, it is not consciousness itself but it is only its content.

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

If "human consciousness" is perceptions, it is not consciousness itself but it is only its content.

Then let us speak of the "perceiver" and the process. Are human-based perceivers and the process of perception the same in God as it is in man?

[ronan]

the porcess is the same: consciousness = god = process by which perception are possible

The human-based perceiver are perceptions, that is why we can perceive this kind of perceiver
everytime you seem to perceive a perceiver there is another one who perceive the perceiver.

your ego is a perception, you believe you are a perceiver but each time you look at yourself there is another perceiver.

So ultimately, there is only one perceiver (but this is a misleading term as we feel we are able to grasp it) which is not perceivable : god, consciousness itself

all other are perceptions.

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

your ego is a perception, you believe you are a perceiver but each time you look at yourself there is another perceiver.

Wouldn't this end by "cogito ergo sum" which deduces personal experience from thought? One needn't look in the mirror and one can certainly not look at the perceiver/thinker we are.

But all right. We have established that consciousness is never different.

Now let us consider this: We cannot experience Aetherage because we have never met with the perception of Aetherage as a perception. As such, as we can not imagine Aetherage.

Before anything came to be, there was no perception. If consciousness is to create anything, it must do so with knowledge of what to create. But consciousness depends upon its knowledge on perceptions. But as there was nothing to perceive, it could not create. Ergo, consciousness cannot create the beginning.

[ronan]

Ronan:


Wouldn't this end by "cogito ergo sum" which deduces personal experience from thought? One needn't look in the mirror and one can certainly not look at the perceiver/thinker we are.

cogito ergo sum is correct if the first person "I" refers to consciousness itself and not to what we think we are by looking at ourselves (habits, thoughts, body...)

Now let us consider this: We cannot experience Aetherage because we have never met with the perception of Aetherage as a perception. As such, as we can not imagine Aetherage.

We cannot imagine
but the "we" refers to humans, not to consciousness.
everything is in consciousness

Before anything came to be, there was no perception.

What do you mean?
If consciousness was always there, there was always perception

If consciousness is to create anything, it must do so with knowledge of what to create.

What do you mean by create?
make it appears in consciousness?

But consciousness depends upon its knowledge on perceptions.

??

But as there was nothing to perceive, it could not create.

What if it is a property of consciousness to perceive.
Why the need of something to perceive?
In fact even in current science, we know now that we never perceive the object that is supposed to be in the real world. We are constructing a representation. what about dreams?

Ergo, consciousness cannot create the beginning.

There is no beginning

[Prince_James]

Ronan:

What do you mean?
If consciousness was always there, there was always perception

Consciousness was all ready there? But clearly, consciousness requires perceptions. And these perceptions form the knowledge for anything to be there.

What do you mean by create?
make it appears in consciousness?

Yes. If we are going for your absolute Idealism.

What if it is a property of consciousness to perceive.
Why the need of something to perceive?
In fact even in current science, we know now that we never perceive the object that is supposed to be in the real world. We are constructing a representation. what about dreams?

Consciousness does perceive...but it must have some form of perception in order to do so, no? And as knowledge comes after perception, it cannot magic perception into existence in order that it can have perception of it. No?

Dreams afford no new experiences.

There is no beginning

If consciousness is there, it cannot be eternal. Owing to its poverty of knowledge independent of perception.

[Prince_James]

cogito ergo sum is correct if the first person "I" refers to consciousness itself and not to what we think we are by looking at ourselves (habits, thoughts, body...)

Well yes, that is what it means. As it deduces the existence of a thinker from thought. That is, not thought itself, but the thinker who thinks said thought.