On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[Divine Insight]

Math is part of logic.

Math is not "part" of logic. Math is simply itself dependent upon logic.

Science works on logic, arguments and evidence.
It works on all 3. if you reject anyone then science falls flat.

Science is also highly dependent upon math which you seem to always leave out.

You seem to reject logic, therefore you reject science and everything else.

No I don't reject logic. That's your false strawman accusation.

All I have stated is that pure logic itself cannot determine reality. And I am most certainly not alone in this view. In fact, as you yourself have pointed out, science does not accept that pure logic alone is sufficient by itself.

What I recognize is that there are problems with mathematical formalism. Those problems actually have nothing to do with logic. They are entirely caused by illogical premises an axioms that have been introduced into mathematics over the years and are specific to mathematics itself, and certainty not to logic as a whole.

So your accusation that I reject logic is a totally false strawman accusation that doesn't have any merit at all. It's actually based on very poor logic on your part.

Your mystical stuff is not science since you reject logic, offer that science has limitations, and offer false unfalsifiable evidence as evidence.

False charges by you on every count.

I do not reject logic. That is your strawman accusation that by this time I feel totally justified in stating that this is becoming underhanded dishonest slander on your part. I do not reject logic. And for you to continually claim that I do is active slander on your part.

Science that is based on mathematics does indeed have limitations which has been demonstrated by science's own Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I don't even need to accuse science of having limitations, its own theories demand it. That is science pointing out its own limitations.

Also I don't need to give evidence for anything because I'm not claiming to have come to a conclusion. That's just more strawman on your part as well. All I offer is a plausibility argument. You are arguing against arguments that I have never made. I don't claim to have any hardcore evidence that points to a specific conclusion.

I'm not claiming to have come to a certain conclusion. My arguments are arguments of plausibility. Apparently you aren't even aware of what you are arguing for or against.

Am not sure what you position is since you rely on obscurantism.

You're inability to comprehend my position does not equate to obscurantism on my part. On the contrary if you believe that my position is obscure then just confess that you don't understand it and move on.

Not only that, you seem to change (make statements you reject logic, and then say you do not).

You don't pay attention to the details. And if you know anything about logic you'd know that details are paramount. I never said that I reject logic. That was your strawman accusation from the get-go. I simply said that logic alone cannot determine reality. That is not the same thing as rejecting logic as a tool for reasoning altogether.

So that's your own strawman accusations that are confusing you. I never rejected logic as a valuable tool for reasoning. I simply point out the fact that pure logic alone cannot determine the true nature of reality.

Your use of words 'mystical' and 'experience' is ill defined and at times contradict the definitions in dictionaries.

I'm not interested in dictionary definitions. If all we had to do was look up a word in the dictionary then there would be nothing to discuss because everything would already be settled by the publishers dictionaries.

If that's the way you debate philosophy then there's no need to even show up. Just send the dictionary of your choice in your stead and every time we want your opinion on something we'll just look it up the concept in question in the dictionary you sent. Would that work for you?

I personally wouldn't go for that. There is no single dictionary that I agree with on every definition they have to offer. In fact, I have often gone to dictionaries when discussing philosophy just to see what the publishers of the dictionary have to offer, and sometimes that can be truly hilarious if your really deep into a conversation and then look at just how superficial dictionaries can often be.

What I am more sure of is that you do not accept that science has a good track records, and even if they never answer your questions, it does not follow that 'magic mystical Eastern Philosophies' are the ultimate truth. I can live in doubt, not knowing the answer, not having to know the answer. Am not convinced you can.

Sometimes I wish you would write shorter to the point posts and not use obtuse obscure words / concepts.

Maybe philosophy isn't your thing?

This thread is in the philosophy forum in case you haven't noticed.

[JohnA]

Math is part of logic.

Math is not "part" of logic. Math is simply itself dependent upon logic.

Science works on logic, arguments and evidence.
It works on all 3. if you reject anyone then science falls flat.

Science is also highly dependent upon math which you seem to always leave out.

You seem to reject logic, therefore you reject science and everything else.

No I don't reject logic. That's your false strawman accusation.

All I have stated is that pure logic itself cannot determine reality. And I am most certainly not alone in this view. In fact, as you yourself have pointed out, science does not accept that pure logic alone is sufficient by itself.

What I recognize is that there are problems with mathematical formalism. Those problems actually have nothing to do with logic. They are entirely caused by illogical premises an axioms that have been introduced into mathematics over the years and are specific to mathematics itself, and certainty not to logic as a whole.

So your accusation that I reject logic is a totally false strawman accusation that doesn't have any merit at all. It's actually based on very poor logic on your part.

Your mystical stuff is not science since you reject logic, offer that science has limitations, and offer false unfalsifiable evidence as evidence.

False charges by you on every count.

I do not reject logic. That is your strawman accusation that by this time I feel totally justified in stating that this is becoming underhanded dishonest slander on your part. I do not reject logic. And for you to continually claim that I do is active slander on your part.

Science that is based on mathematics does indeed have limitations which has been demonstrated by science's own Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I don't even need to accuse science of having limitations, its own theories demand it. That is science pointing out its own limitations.

Also I don't need to give evidence for anything because I'm not claiming to have come to a conclusion. That's just more strawman on your part as well. All I offer is a plausibility argument. You are arguing against arguments that I have never made. I don't claim to have any hardcore evidence that points to a specific conclusion.

I'm not claiming to have come to a certain conclusion. My arguments are arguments of plausibility. Apparently you aren't even aware of what you are arguing for or against.

Am not sure what you position is since you rely on obscurantism.

You're inability to comprehend my position does not equate to obscurantism on my part. On the contrary if you believe that my position is obscure then just confess that you don't understand it and move on.

Not only that, you seem to change (make statements you reject logic, and then say you do not).

You don't pay attention to the details. And if you know anything about logic you'd know that details are paramount. I never said that I reject logic. That was your strawman accusation from the get-go. I simply said that logic alone cannot determine reality. That is not the same thing as rejecting logic as a tool for reasoning altogether.

So that's your own strawman accusations that are confusing you. I never rejected logic as a valuable tool for reasoning. I simply point out the fact that pure logic alone cannot determine the true nature of reality.

Your use of words 'mystical' and 'experience' is ill defined and at times contradict the definitions in dictionaries.

I'm not interested in dictionary definitions. If all we had to do was look up a word in the dictionary then there would be nothing to discuss because everything would already be settled by the publishers dictionaries.

If that's the way you debate philosophy then there's no need to even show up. Just send the dictionary of your choice in your stead and every time we want your opinion on something we'll just look it up the concept in question in the dictionary you sent. Would that work for you?

I personally wouldn't go for that. There is no single dictionary that I agree with on every definition they have to offer. In fact, I have often gone to dictionaries when discussing philosophy just to see what the publishers of the dictionary have to offer, and sometimes that can be truly hilarious if your really deep into a conversation and then look at just how superficial dictionaries can often be.

What I am more sure of is that you do not accept that science has a good track records, and even if they never answer your questions, it does not follow that 'magic mystical Eastern Philosophies' are the ultimate truth. I can live in doubt, not knowing the answer, not having to know the answer. Am not convinced you can.

Sometimes I wish you would write shorter to the point posts and not use obtuse obscure words / concepts.

Maybe philosophy isn't your thing?

This thread is in the philosophy forum in case you haven't noticed.

You clearly said:

I wouldn't necessarily argue with that. But look carefully at that conditional statement. It begins with "If logic is supposed to describe our universe". That's the proposition. I already don't accept that proposition. I believe that we can construct logical systems that don't describe our universe. So there's no problem there.

To my statement of: "If logic is suppose to describe our universe, THEN logic is wrong."

So, you are rejecting logic, and want you own logical system.

That is why you have no conclusion. That is because you need logic to formulate an argument, and then you need evidence to make your argument valid and sound. Since you fail at the logic, you fail. And I already said that I do not understand your argument as you have none.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is underpinned by math. And now you say you reject math so you need to reject the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as well.

Logic has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof. Math is a branch of Logic, therefore PART of it. You could say math is also dependent upon the valid reasoning part of logic. This is just an example again of your obscurantism.
And then you continue to take this and formulate your straw man and beat it up.


So science demand limitations in order for it to work? How bizarre.
As an self-confessed obscurantist, you at least admitted that you are not interested in definitions of words in dictionaries.

And be careful accusing me of "philosophy is not my thing'. Philosophy is fundamentally flawed when it comes in comparison to to science. That is why science came from natural philosophy - to get rid of armchair opinions rejecting empiricism.

You need logic to make any philosophical argument. You want to reject logic in order to make your argument. So maybe you are in the wrong thread.

Good day.

[keithprosser3]

Your loyalty to rationality does you credit. Your blinkered stubborness not so much.
Good day indeed.

[Divine Insight]

As an self-confessed obscurantist,

Back up your strawman accusations. Show me where I confessed to any such thing.

you at least admitted that you are not interested in definitions of words in dictionaries.

Absolutely. If you live in an imaginary dictionary-perfect world then you shouldn't even be concerned with discussing anything with anyone. Just tell them to look it up in the dictionary.

If that's the way you think then there isn't any point in even talking with you. Just go read your dictionary, and you'll find answers to every imaginable question.

In fact, why should scientists even bother to try to figure things out when, according to you, all they need to do is go look it up their dictionary?

I can't even believe you would suggest such a thing on a debating forum.

That's almost as bad as religious extremism.

"If it's written in the dictionary it must be the Gospel Truth!"

By George, we've just got ourselves a new Bible and a New Religion.

We can call it: Dictionarianism

[olavisjo]

.

Please do not put words in my mouth similar to the materialists' artificial facts in their head.

Signals are material. We have no evidence for the immaterial.
If you have this evidence then please consider:

1) Supply your evidence for the immaterial.
2) Supply your evidence for the immaterial to material link.
3) Supply our evidence that the abstraction that science makes of molecules, elements, atoms, particles does not consist of material concrete objects.

If you can not do the above, then your argument fails.

I did not put the words in your mouth, you did...

We are merely interpreting signals coming from our material brain...

If "we are interpreting signals coming from our material brain" then we are neither "material signals" nor "material brains".

So if we are still material, what sort of material are we, if not signals or material brains?

[otseng]

Your loyalty to rationality does you credit. Your blinkered stubborness not so much.

Moderator Warning


You may post positive personal comments, but not negative ones.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnA]

As an self-confessed obscurantist,

Back up your strawman accusations. Show me where I confessed to any such thing.

you at least admitted that you are not interested in definitions of words in dictionaries.

Absolutely. If you live in an imaginary dictionary-perfect world then you shouldn't even be concerned with discussing anything with anyone. Just tell them to look it up in the dictionary.

If that's the way you think then there isn't any point in even talking with you. Just go read your dictionary, and you'll find answers to every imaginable question.

In fact, why should scientists even bother to try to figure things out when, according to you, all they need to do is go look it up their dictionary?

I can't even believe you would suggest such a thing on a debating forum.

That's almost as bad as religious extremism.

"If it's written in the dictionary it must be the Gospel Truth!"

By George, we've just got ourselves a new Bible and a New Religion.

We can call it: Dictionarianism

It seems to me that you admitted to rejecting logic, math (mathematical formalism), science and now dictionaries.

Therefore it is no point we continue as nothing I write is acceptable to you since you reject the meaning of words.

I always find it quite amazing and amusing when people claim to believe to know other people's beliefs. Your reference to Dictionarianism is fallacious (self-refuting) since you reject dictionaries. Also it is fallacious (straw-manning), and since you are claiming to know my position on dictionaries then take it and beat your own straw man.

Also, I never claimed to be a philosorcerer!

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that you admitted to rejecting logic, math (mathematical formalism), science and now dictionaries.

Well, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

I don't reject logic. That has been your own strawman accusation all along.

I also don't reject all of mathematical formalism. I merely recognize that the mathematical community has made some wrong turns in formulating mathematics over the course of history. Most of the logical errors they have introduced have been quite recent near the end of the 17th century.

So you are wrong in claiming that I reject logic. Clearly you cannot address the actual topic so rather than address the issues you make totally erroneous strawman claims about me on a personal level. Claims that are clearly false.

I also most certainly do not reject science. I simply recognize its limitations which any good scientists should most certainly do. You should always be aware of the limitations of the intellectual tools you use to analyze your reality. Limitations are certainly nothing to be ashamed of, nor defended against.

Also, I don't 'reject' dictionaries. I just don't see them as weapons to support semantic warfare. IMHO, that is a total waste of everyone's time.

Before you can even talk about dictionaries you must ask, "What is language?"

Well, language is mankind's attempt to verbally communicate ideas from one mind to another. So the purpose of language is communication. Therefore if you wish to sincerely communicate with someone, and you have a different view from them on what a particular words means, then instead of declaring semantic warfare over the term, a far more productive approach is to simply ask them how they are using the word. That is what words are for in the first place remember? We use words in an attempt to communicate ideas and concepts and they don't always serve us well.

Moreover, the very existence of thesauruses is blatant evidence that meanings of words have a very wide birth of meanings. Any poet or songwriter will be very happy to explain how flexible words can actually be.

It makes no sense to just point to a dictionary as the "Final Word" on philosophical debates. If that could be justified then there would be no point even even having a philosophical debate. Instead, all that would need to be said is, "Just look it up in the dictionary".

So no, I don't reject dictionaries for their intended purpose of offering us words to help us communicate our ideas. But I do reject your attempt to use dictionaries as a weapon of semantic war. This is especially absurd when you are in a philosophical debate. If we turn to dictionaries it would simply be for clarification on how each of us are using words. And we may even turn to different dictionaries for that purpose. All publishers of dictionaries do not even agree on the definitions of words. Which is another fact that makes your appeal to using a dictionary for semantic warfare invalid.

Therefore it is no point we continue as nothing I write is acceptable to you since you reject the meaning of words.

Actually, based on your arguments thus far I think it's fairly safe to conclude that you are actually in agreement with my underlying philosophy and you simply aren't aware of this yourself. You have already confessed that science cannot answer the question of consciousness, and that confession alone pretty much seals the deal.

I always find it quite amazing and amusing when people claim to believe to know other people's beliefs.

But isn't that what you have been doing toward me? You have been attempting to claim to know my beliefs all along.

You claim that I reject logic, which is completely false.

You claim that I reject mathematical formalism, which is also false.
(I simply recognize that it has fairly recently gotten off track)

You claim that I reject science, which is also false.
(I simply recognize its innate limitations)
(I might also add that its own theory of Quantum Mechanics also demands that science is necessarily limited)
So it has discovered its own limitations via its very own theories and experiments.

You claim that I reject dictionaries, which is also false.
(I simply use them properly to help understand and convey ideas linguistically)
(Apparently your view of dictionaries is that they should be used as weapons in semantic wars)
I personally don't even care to engage in semantic wars.

Your reference to Dictionarianism is fallacious (self-refuting) since you reject dictionaries. Also it is fallacious (straw-manning), and since you are claiming to know my position on dictionaries then take it and beat your own straw man.

You are trying to use dictionaries as a strawman weapon of semantic wars.

If we disagree on a particular term all we need to do is explain to each other how we are using that term and what concept we are considering when we use it. As I have said, the purpose of language (and therefore the purpose of words) is to linguistically communicate concepts and ideas. When they fail us in that function, and become nothing more than fodder for semantic wars, we can be certain that there is no longer any sincere desire communicate.

Also, I never claimed to be a philosorcerer!

No surprise there.

The first criteria of being a good philosopher is to have a genuine and sincere desire to exchange ideas and concepts in a meaningful way. If you're going to declare semantic warfare at every drop of the hat, then there is clearly no desire to understand the concepts being discussed.

[JohnA]

It seems to me that you admitted to rejecting logic, math (mathematical formalism), science and now dictionaries.

Well, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

I don't reject logic. That has been your own strawman accusation all along.

I also don't reject all of mathematical formalism. I merely recognize that the mathematical community has made some wrong turns in formulating mathematics over the course of history. Most of the logical errors they have introduced have been quite recent near the end of the 17th century.

So you are wrong in claiming that I reject logic. Clearly you cannot address the actual topic so rather than address the issues you make totally erroneous strawman claims about me on a personal level. Claims that are clearly false.

I also most certainly do not reject science. I simply recognize its limitations which any good scientists should most certainly do. You should always be aware of the limitations of the intellectual tools you use to analyze your reality. Limitations are certainly nothing to be ashamed of, nor defended against.

Also, I don't 'reject' dictionaries. I just don't see them as weapons to support semantic warfare. IMHO, that is a total waste of everyone's time.

Before you can even talk about dictionaries you must ask, "What is language?"

Well, language is mankind's attempt to verbally communicate ideas from one mind to another. So the purpose of language is communication. Therefore if you wish to sincerely communicate with someone, and you have a different view from them on what a particular words means, then instead of declaring semantic warfare over the term, a far more productive approach is to simply ask them how they are using the word. That is what words are for in the first place remember? We use words in an attempt to communicate ideas and concepts and they don't always serve us well.

Moreover, the very existence of thesauruses is blatant evidence that meanings of words have a very wide birth of meanings. Any poet or songwriter will be very happy to explain how flexible words can actually be.

It makes no sense to just point to a dictionary as the "Final Word" on philosophical debates. If that could be justified then there would be no point even even having a philosophical debate. Instead, all that would need to be said is, "Just look it up in the dictionary".

So no, I don't reject dictionaries for their intended purpose of offering us words to help us communicate our ideas. But I do reject your attempt to use dictionaries as a weapon of semantic war. This is especially absurd when you are in a philosophical debate. If we turn to dictionaries it would simply be for clarification on how each of us are using words. And we may even turn to different dictionaries for that purpose. All publishers of dictionaries do not even agree on the definitions of words. Which is another fact that makes your appeal to using a dictionary for semantic warfare invalid.

Therefore it is no point we continue as nothing I write is acceptable to you since you reject the meaning of words.

Actually, based on your arguments thus far I think it's fairly safe to conclude that you are actually in agreement with my underlying philosophy and you simply aren't aware of this yourself. You have already confessed that science cannot answer the question of consciousness, and that confession alone pretty much seals the deal.

I always find it quite amazing and amusing when people claim to believe to know other people's beliefs.

But isn't that what you have been doing toward me? You have been attempting to claim to know my beliefs all along.

You claim that I reject logic, which is completely false.

You claim that I reject mathematical formalism, which is also false.
(I simply recognize that it has fairly recently gotten off track)

You claim that I reject science, which is also false.
(I simply recognize its innate limitations)
(I might also add that its own theory of Quantum Mechanics also demands that science is necessarily limited)
So it has discovered its own limitations via its very own theories and experiments.

You claim that I reject dictionaries, which is also false.
(I simply use them properly to help understand and convey ideas linguistically)
(Apparently your view of dictionaries is that they should be used as weapons in semantic wars)
I personally don't even care to engage in semantic wars.

Your reference to Dictionarianism is fallacious (self-refuting) since you reject dictionaries. Also it is fallacious (straw-manning), and since you are claiming to know my position on dictionaries then take it and beat your own straw man.

You are trying to use dictionaries as a strawman weapon of semantic wars.

If we disagree on a particular term all we need to do is explain to each other how we are using that term and what concept we are considering when we use it. As I have said, the purpose of language (and therefore the purpose of words) is to linguistically communicate concepts and ideas. When they fail us in that function, and become nothing more than fodder for semantic wars, we can be certain that there is no longer any sincere desire communicate.

Also, I never claimed to be a philosorcerer!

No surprise there.

The first criteria of being a good philosopher is to have a genuine and sincere desire to exchange ideas and concepts in a meaningful way. If you're going to declare semantic warfare at every drop of the hat, then there is clearly no desire to understand the concepts being discussed.

Your writings are in your posts where you clearly reject these things.
I never said that science cannot answer the question of consciousness. I said they have not yet, but there is no reason to think they will not.


My philosorcerer use was witty, seems like you missed it. You have my opinion on philosophy.

As mentioned before, there is no point in having a discussion with you since you reject the basic things that we use to formulate an understanding and explanation of reality. And I am a bit tired of your straw manning and obscurantism.

[Divine Insight]

As mentioned before, there is no point in having a discussion with you since you reject the basic things that we use to formulate an understanding and explanation of reality. And I am a bit tired of your straw manning and obscurantism.

I don't see where it's even possible to have a meaningful conversation with you. All you've done thus far is constantly attack on a personal level with your continual straw manning and obscurantism. The very things that you attempt to slander me with.

As far as I can see, on the Topic of Consciousness, you have nothing to offer.

You are apparently in agreement with me and don't even realize it.