Old Rasputin wrote:Sure, let me try this approach; I’ll remove the confusing language (“consciousness”) and replace it with the variable X. Let’s start with Daniel Dennett saying -- “X is not real”.
Badger then says -- “I know that X is real (dammit!), because if X were not real, then I could not know that X is real”.
And similarly, a Christian might say -- “The Bible is the true word of God (gosh darn it!), because if it were not true, then it would say so here in this Bible.”
Notice that the starting premise and the conclusion are essentially one-in-the-same. Both Badger and the Christian are guilty of committing a logical reasoning error (begging-the-question; pre-assuming the conclusion).
BadgerJelly wrote:Does Dennett say "X is not real"?
BadgerJelly wrote:Are my dreams not 'real'?
BadgerJelly wrote:What do you mean by "real"? Hopefully you can see where this leads you?
BadgerJelly wrote:What does it mean to say "consciousness is real?", or for that matter, that it is not real? 'Reality' is a very plastic term. I tend not to see the need for it when thinking about matters regarding consciousness.
BadgerJelly wrote:The dream I had last night was real, I was in a state of consciousness.
BadgerJelly wrote:Further more, if my "consciousness" is an illusion then the "me" of the "my" is absent.
BadgerJelly wrote:If you wish to saw away the branch called "consciousness" you are sitting on, go ahead. If you don't fall tell me why and how if you can. If this analogy is unfitting then try to highlight where it veers away from whatever it is you are saying.
BadgerJelly wrote:Try as I might I can try and explain what consciousness "feels like" to a table, or even another human, but my position will always remain my singular position, and my position is confirmed to me by witnessing actions.
As I pointed out earlier, one should not equate the truth or falsity of the content of consciousness with consciousness itself, as Dennett does. While it is true that one cannot be consciousness of nothing, one must be conscious of an illusion. In fact a person who is unconscious cannot experience an illusion—or anything else for that matter.
So that the proposition, “Consciousness is an illusion” is manifest question begging. For, although, I happily admit that some experiences may be illusory, all experiences are conscious.
However the expression, “Consciousness is voluntary memory” is not repetitious, because it adds two new ideas: (1) that consciousness is a kind of memory and (2) that it is the kind of memory that makes volition possible.
Neri wrote:To have any experience one must be conscious. Those who are unconscious experience nothing. To be conscious one must experience something. If one experiences nothing, one is unconscious.
Neri wrote:For a presumption cannot exist outside of a conscious mind to begin with.
Neri wrote:The will makes an immanent future event certain and is thus the cause of it. For example, if I form an intent to kill you, and, in furtherance of that intent, I point a gun at your head and pull the trigger, I put a series of evens into motion that will certainly result in your death. The hammer of the gun falls, the primer ignites, the main charge explodes, and the bullet is propelled out of the barrel travelling at great speed towards your head resulting in your death.
Now, no rational person would suggest that your death was not caused by my willful act. Only a madman would suggest that the classical causal rules of chemistry and physics, so far as they concern the operation of guns, were the actual causes of your death and that I was just an innocent bystander, simply because there was a time lag between my pulling the trigger and your death. Now that time lag is enormously longer than the time lag between the bullet entering your head and my experience of it. Certainly, both are irrelevant to the question of free will for reasons that should be abundantly clear.
Neri » April 13th, 2017, 4:09 am wrote:OR,
As I previously explained, your conclusions are erroneous. Please read my posts more carefully.
Both our experiences of hunger itself and the word “hunger” are conscious.
“Intentionality” refers to the content or character of consciousness—what one is conscious of. Voluntary memory refers to consciousness itself. To put it another way, experience of any kind, because it is always about something, presumes consciousness, even though consciousness cannot manifest itself except in some context or character.
BadgerJelly » April 18th, 2017, 9:27 am wrote:I would tag on to this the obvious question of what consciousness is if there is nothing for it to direct itself toward? This seems to be the area you've moved into correct?
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests