The Nature of Consciousness Vs Religious Concepts

[JamesShrugged]

Hello Everyone!

I just wanted to share with you my latest essay, and I would be happy to answer any questions!

http://wedontneedgod.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/the-nature-of-consciousness-vs-religious-concepts/

[Brant Gaede]

Everyone who knows about the idea of God understands the epistemological existence of God. Those who believe in his metaphysical reality are victims of faith.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

As usual in these types of essays, you haven't come a step nearer to proving that God or spiritual beings in general don't exist. The mistake you make is that you equate "we don't know of any instances of x" with "there are no instances of x". X in this case being consciousness existing apart from a physical body or sense organs.

However, further discussion with an author who deletes comments that are apparently critical of his post in lieu of actually giving some sort of reply to let the audience judge who has the best argument, is probably bootless.

Jeffrey S.

[JamesShrugged]

As usual in these types of essays, you haven't come a step nearer to proving that God or spiritual beings in general don't exist. The mistake you make is that you equate "we don't know of any instances of x" with "there are no instances of x". X in this case being consciousness existing apart from a physical body or sense organs.

However, further discussion with an author who deletes comments that are apparently critical of his post in lieu of actually giving some sort of reply to let the audience judge who has the best argument, is probably bootless.

Jeffrey S.

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness.

I did delete posts from my blog: they were off-topic, or otherwise contributed nothing to the discussion. I did leave the first post from the objector intact, as it contained what he repeated over and over.

[jeffrey smith]

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness.

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked with physical bodies, and your only evidence to support this assumption is that we don't know of any such. Unfortunately for you, not knowing of any is not, in logic, the equivalent of there are none such (unless you have omniscience, of course). Your assumption is a simple assertion, and your basic argument evaporates.

As for your final point that a non-embodied consciousness would not have anything to be aware of, it would in fact have at least one thing to be aware of: itself.

(Obviously,I changed my mind about replying.)

[Brant Gaede]

As usual in these types of essays, you haven't come a step nearer to proving that God or spiritual beings in general don't exist. The mistake you make is that you equate "we don't know of any instances of x" with "there are no instances of x". X in this case being consciousness existing apart from a physical body or sense organs.

However, further discussion with an author who deletes comments that are apparently critical of his post in lieu of actually giving some sort of reply to let the audience judge who has the best argument, is probably bootless.

Jeffrey S.

How do you prove something doesn't exist (a negative)?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness.

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked with physical bodies, and your only evidence to support this assumption is that we don't know of any such. Unfortunately for you, not knowing of any is not, in logic, the equivalent of there are none such (unless you have omniscience, of course). Your assumption is a simple assertion, and your basic argument evaporates.

As for your final point that a non-embodied consciousness would not have anything to be aware of, it would in fact have at least one thing to be aware of: itself.

(Obviously,I changed my mind about replying.)

I personally wouldn't make any such assumption, but I have no evidence to the contrary.

--Brant

[JamesShrugged]

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness.

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked with physical bodies, and your only evidence to support this assumption is that we don't know of any such. Unfortunately for you, not knowing of any is not, in logic, the equivalent of there are none such (unless you have omniscience, of course). Your assumption is a simple assertion, and your basic argument evaporates.

As for your final point that a non-embodied consciousness would not have anything to be aware of, it would in fact have at least one thing to be aware of: itself.

(Obviously,I changed my mind about replying.)

That is not true. In the essay I give various example of the minds dependence on the brain and matter in general. Not only does all the evidence we do have support the thesis that the mind and body are in fact integrated, but the theoretical philosophical argument supports it as well.

As for your last objection, I'll let Ayn Rand answer, since that is where I learned the idea:

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124.

[dan2100]

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness.

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked with physical bodies, and your only evidence to support this assumption is that we don't know of any such. Unfortunately for you, not knowing of any is not, in logic, the equivalent of there are none such (unless you have omniscience, of course). Your assumption is a simple assertion, and your basic argument evaporates.

As for your final point that a non-embodied consciousness would not have anything to be aware of, it would in fact have at least one thing to be aware of: itself.

(Obviously,I changed my mind about replying.)

That is not true. In the essay I give various example of the minds dependence on the brain and matter in general. Not only does all the evidence we do have support the thesis that the mind and body are in fact integrated, but the theoretical philosophical argument supports it as well.

As for your last objection, I'll let Ayn Rand answer, since that is where I learned the idea:

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124.

Small quibble: I think there's a difference between holding there's a mind-independent reality and materialism.

[jeffrey smith]

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness.

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked with physical bodies, and your only evidence to support this assumption is that we don't know of any such. Unfortunately for you, not knowing of any is not, in logic, the equivalent of there are none such (unless you have omniscience, of course). Your assumption is a simple assertion, and your basic argument evaporates.

As for your final point that a non-embodied consciousness would not have anything to be aware of, it would in fact have at least one thing to be aware of: itself.

(Obviously,I changed my mind about replying.)

That is not true. In the essay I give various example of the minds dependence on the brain and matter in general. Not only does all the evidence we do have support the thesis that the mind and body are in fact integrated, but the theoretical philosophical argument supports it as well.

Which is correct, if you ignore the fact that mind and body are not quite so well integrated as you seem to think, and there is no theoretical philosophical argument that supports it, merely assertions.

As for your last objection, I'll let Ayn Rand answer, since that is where I learned the idea:

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124.

So we have to be aware of things outside ourself before we can be aware of ourselves?

Not true.

And in fact, if you take Rand's words at their most precise, they imply that the self, the ego, does not exist. Now, while this is perfectly acceptable if one is a Buddhist, it probably causes problems if you adopt a philosophy based on the principle of rational egoism.

What you don't seem to understand (a failure of understanding that apparently Rand shared as well) is that conciousness does not require awareness of identity. One can be aware of oneself without being aware of other things, one can be aware of other things without being aware of oneself, one can be aware of both at the same time--and of course, one can be aware of oneself and other things being one unified entity.

Jeffrey S.

[George H. Smith]

And in fact, if you take Rand's words at their most precise, they imply that the self, the ego, does not exist.

How you could possibly arrive at this conclusion escapes me.

What you don't seem to understand (a failure of understanding that apparently Rand shared as well) is that conciousness does not require awareness of identity.

To my knowledge, Rand never made this claim.

One can be aware of oneself without being aware of other things, one can be aware of other things without being aware of oneself, one can be aware of both at the same time--and of course, one can be aware of oneself and other things being one unified entity.

Why do you think that Rand's position would entail the denial of any of this? To claim that consciousness requires the awareness of something (a position that has been defended by many philosophers, btw) does not preclude the possibility that this "something" might be some aspect or subjective experience of one's self, such as sensations of pleasure and pain.

Ghs

[jeffrey smith]

And in fact, if you take Rand's words at their most precise, they imply that the self, the ego, does not exist.

How you could possibly arrive at this conclusion escapes me.

The second sentence of the passage quoted above from Galt's Speech: if you read it as a precise expression of her ideas, it implies that the self is not a "something" since consciousness must be aware of "something"s yet can't be aware of itself.

As I said above, this is a somewhat absurd implication given everything else Rand said. The only other way I can read that sentence is to imply that consciousness is awareness of something which is not our own self. IOW, we become aware of entity A and as part of that awareness, we realize that A is not our own self, and that we have a self which is different from all other entities.

If she didn't mean this, then I would have say she was guilty of some seriously flabby writing here. But that's how I arrive at the conclusion you went on to question in this way:

What you don't seem to understand (a failure of understanding that apparently Rand shared as well) is that conciousness does not require awareness of identity.

To my knowledge, Rand never made this claim.

One can be aware of oneself without being aware of other things, one can be aware of other things without being aware of oneself, one can be aware of both at the same time--and of course, one can be aware of oneself and other things being one unified entity.

Why do you think that Rand's position would entail the denial of any of this? To claim that consciousness requires the awareness of something (a position that has been defended by many philosophers, btw) does not preclude the possibility that this "something" might be some aspect or subjective experience of one's self, such as sensations of pleasure and pain.

Ghs

I think Rand's formulation above precludes the idea of one's own self as being an entity of which one can be aware without first being aware of other entities.

There is one aspect here I want to praise Rand on. The natural state of the human mind is to be unfocused--that is, to be aware of other entities or to be aware of other entities but not as entities different from oneself. Rand's insight was that the primal moral choice was whether or not to think--to "focus" or not to focus: IOW, whether to shift from the natural unfocused state to a state of being in focus, being aware of oneself and other entities as things apart, is the primary choice we are always making.

Jeffrey S.

Edited April 14, 2010 by jeffrey smith