No you moron, you have to define how you are using the term consciousness because definition of what is consciousness can vary between people your definition really makes no sense as you have defined it so vaguely that almost anything can be considered Aware = consciousness fuck what do you mean by aware, an amoeba can be conscious by your defintion, which is why you lose in this little argument and much science disagrees with your definition, since many people that study this topic try to define what they mean by consciousness, you however have not really ever defined it beyond vague tersm. Hence the reason you use circular reasoning and vague terms, it gives you an out when everyone points out the error in your concepts.

No, he was implying that my definition of consciousness as awareness was tautological or unintelligible. If you are incapable of determining whether you are aware or not, then any attempt on my part to define the term to your satisfaction will ultimately be an exercise in futility.

You cannot identify one physical property that consciousness has. Also, you are forced to believe that you have free will in practice, even though you deny it in theory. Therefore, I can safely assume that your belief in materialism is one based on faith - a faith-commitment to a metaphysical veiw even when there is evidence to the contrary.

You have just repeated your error.

The first part of your response here is entirely consistent with what I said - he disagrees with your definition of 'awareness', and said nothing about 'determining whether you are aware or not'. That is a non-sequiter.

And that still does not imply that he is saying he doesn't know whether he is aware or not. Even if that made sense, one is either 'aware' or not. Awareness of your awareness is a second-order perception, ie introspection.

We are not asserting that 'consciousness' has any 'physical properties' itself - that would make it some sort of physical entity itself. Rather, it would almost be true to say that it itself is a 'property' of a physical object, ie the brain. 'Consciousness' no more has a physical property than 'length' itself has a physical extent. You are making a category error.

Name a physical property of Microsoft Windows software when it is running on a computer. What is its height, weight, velocity, pressure, etc.?

Not that of the images that it causes to be generated on the screen, that would be the equivalent of something we might draw on paper.

Nor of the disc it was installed from, or the Hard Drive it is running from - they are just the static information defining its running behaviour and responses, like the genetic code which defined our brain structure, plus the books and experiences we have encountered.

Does its lack of such physical properties mean it is 'supernatural'? It interacts with us, it makes decisions, does that mean it is in some separate realm, or that it is merely an 'epiphenomena'?

I am trying to get across to you that there are whole categories of referents which are neither physical objects nor transcendental or even in quite the category of 'mind', although some clearly share some attributes of mind and consciousness. They are all connected, but different in nature so you either have to expand 'dualism' to 'multi-ism' or acknowledge that reality is more of a continuum, from brute physical matter to structured matter to process to 'higher-level' abstractions like mind and consciousness.

What is more accurately described as my lack of belief in dualistic ideas is due to my finding them ill-defined and unnecessary in providing useful explanations of reality to me - that is all.

There is nothing that compels me to 'believe in 'free' will, I am pretty much aware of all the things which determine my decisions, the memories, desires, moods, memories, reasoning, etc, if I think about them. I genuinely cannot imagine what else could be contributing to my decisions, and all those things together clearly determine my choices. I have no intuitive or theoretical problem with that.

Apparently you don't see your choices from that perspective. OK, just don't assume that I have the same perspective on my mental processes that you have on yours. It has become abundantly clear over the time we have been interacting on these forums that we do think very differently, so that should not be a surprise...

You clearly have no insight into my thought-processes at all. Unlike you, I will refrain from trying to analyse yours.

I see. First you argue that if I define consciousness as awareness then even an amoeba can be conscious.   Now you're retracting your statement because I fully agree that an amoeba is aware. If you don't know what I mean by awareness, then you lack the intellectual capacity to debate me. It's that simple.

Based on Wikipedia's defintion of awareness as described below, I have every reason to believe that an amoeba is aware.

No further commentary is necessary. To say anymore than this is to give your post a modicum of respectability which it certainly does not deserve.

The title of the thread is "I Support Jesus." Case closed.

 

Shut up. Don't analyze people. You don't have the credentials.

I can't really dodge something that wasn't aimed at me in the first place.

 

I shall take this as an instant crash course in the art of reading without thinking.

I got a kick out of these two juxtaposed whinings...

 

And his law credentials are?

So you have taken everything I've said up to today seriously. I'm glad you consider me a deep thinker.

Sapient was pretending to be a psychologist. He is not a psychologist, so that makes me mad. Your little brother was some sort of moral prodigy if he cared about these issues at 12.

Christ was a philosopher. No one needs credentials to name moral truths.

I see - you don't read your Bible or much of anything else.

 

How to turn a more than half interesting thread into a pointless mud sling contest in a single post.

Length of an object can be measured. You cannot make any kind of quantifiable measurement of consciousness, or to even objectively test for its presence.

I am not an electrical engineer. However, I believe that the code itself is physical (i.e. the software itself is converted to machine code which consists entirely of bits - binary digits which correspond to whether the electrical current is "on" (1) or "off" (0)).

Several points:

1) Conscious intelligence (i.e. a large group of computer programmers) is responsible for creating the software (i.e. the abstraction or "consciousness" in your analogy). It was not generated or created by the hardware (i.e. the physical substrate in your analogy). This is something you are failing to take into account. It has implications for freedom and emergent properties with causal-efficacy.

2) Abstractions are clearly nonphysical (by your own admission). Therefore, consciousness (which is an abstraction in your analogy) is nonphysical. This qualifies as dualism.

3) What you described is actually epiphenomenalism. The abstraction is simply a byproduct (or an emergent property) of an underlying electrochemical process. IOW, the abstraction (or pattern) does not have any causal-efficacy. 

4) If consciousness is simply the software and information processing, then am I to infer that my personal computer (which is running the Microsoft operating system) is conscious? If not, why not?

5) If consciousness is information processing, then am I am to infer than an amoeba is conscious? Remember, the amoeba is an organic computer (i.e. a stimulus-response system that processes information). If not, why not?

6) If consciousness is a CONTINUUM, then am I to infer that entire physical process has the property of consciousness. If not, why not?

I call it a belief in materialism. Disbeliefs imply beliefs.

I reserve the right to critique your logic. If you do not allow me this option, then there is really no point in debating.

You believe you have intentional acts (you admitted that much above). All intentional acts presuppose some kind of purposive action. However, your worldview precludes the reality of purposive action. Why? Because all  intentional acts, on the materialistic view, reduce to nonteleological (i.e. having no purpose) electrochemical processes. Therefore, purposive actions must be deemed purely illusory.

No, you're wrong. I'm sorry. You're just completely wrong.

The materialist does NOT believe that consciousness is composed of "fast moving electro-chemicals." There is not a single person on this forum that believes this. We believe that consciousness is caused by brain chemistry, but consciousness itself is not composed of anything. It's merely an abstraction, an emerging property or characteristic.  

As I've already pointed out in the wiki definition multiple times, a materialist can believe in phenomena that are the result of material interactions, but are not themselves composed of matter. In this case, the tornado does not work as an analogy because tornados ARE composed of matter.

You can change your definition of materialism or there aren't any materialists on this forum. Either way, it doesn't support the existence of souls in the slightest. Take your pick. It's just semantics.

Unless you are equating mind with brain, mind is not an entity.

consciousness is not composed of any substance at all, hoss, and perception does not substantial "reality" make.  in the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion, but since it is a delusion that is complementary to biochemicals which obey observable laws, and this complement is fairly consistent among humans, we deduce that it is a viable means of observing "reality," or at least the most viable means currently available.  when there is an anomaly in this consistency, we can call it "delusion" in the accidental sense, or even insanity.

besides, you're missing the whole point of materialism by getting obsessed with what a materialist "believes."  materialism is not an end in itself.  the most important thing a materialist "believes" is that observing material reality is the only safe way to draw conclusions as to how the human race should proceed in order to ensure the maximum possibility of continued siurvival.

in fact, the nature of "reality" and "existence" are not primary concerns for a materialist, as even the most daft person with even a modicum of critical thinking skills can tell you that these terms are entirely relative. 

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

 

once again, the only argument i was making had to do with materialism period, so i have no idea what you're trying to prove with that statement, unless it's merely to make me ooh and ah.

by the way, i said absolutely nothing that would narrow my arguments down to the realm of dialectical materialism.  as i am someone who is extremely well-read in marx, engels, rosa luxemburg, plekhanov, lenin, trotsky, ernest mandel, victor serge, mao, isaac deutscher, the young sidney hook, robert tucker, neil harding, and slavoj zizek, i would think twice before trying to bullshit me on the topic of dialectical materialism if your knowledge of it is, as i suspect, no deeper than a wikipedia article.

then again, no one ever listens...  

That's not my problem. I'm not a materialist. But I do feel your pain.

Well, if consciousness is really just abstractions and abstractions really don't exist, then I guess there's no point in debating you any further on this subject. Why? Because you really don't exist.

Paisley,

Your problem seems to be that you know what you're not but haven't a clue as to what you are.

 

Nope. Jesus was not God.

In fact, God is naught but an idea in your head (and a lot of other heads, granted).

Jesus was a man. A bit of a hippie. Probably a lot like Charles Manson (sans the murders).

I suppose we can say that Jesus = God ... insofar that one idea equals another idea, but that's where the buck stops.

You Christian (and any other kind of) believers are a bunch of delusional hypocrites.

And yes, I not only spit on you, I would even piss on you. Unless you were on fire, that is.

If you read my reply thoroughly, I was responding to the OP, who was saying that he supported Jesus.  What Jesus do you suppose he is talking about?  The Biblical Jesus?  Then he goes on to say that the Biblical Jesus is not God, as Christians say.  This was the context of my reply.  Whether you believe the Bible is accurate or not is not the subject here.  The OP supports Jesus, and I posed the problems with his statement. 

I'm not talking about the Gospel writings.  I'm talking about the Gospel itself, something many atheists, and even many Christians, know little to nothing about.  Pastors such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, D.A. Carson, and John Piper give great detail about the Gospel, drawing from the Bible and Christian history to paint an elaborate picture of what many self-proclaimed scholars can't see.

The word 'Gospel' means good news.  Christianity, in fact, did not start off as a religion, as many treat it.  Christianity started off as 'good news.'  This news was the God became a man and proclaimed the glory of God through his death on the cross, and our salvation through his death and resurrection.  We are not only saved from our sins, but also from an life of futility.  Those who believe are those who say Jesus as good news to them.  Those that don't refuse the Gospel because it does not benefit them in the way that a repeatable observation and formula would. 

The Gospel is not about men, as you would suppose.  The Gospel is God with us in Jesus, unlike what Marquis proclaims.  The Gospel does not benefit us in this lifetime as some televangelists proclaim, but is meant for the glory of God.  This can be thoroughly portrayed in John chapter 17.  Many also suppose that Jesus died in response to our sin, meaning that God was ignorant of it.  But the Gospel shows that Christ was slain before the foundations of the world so that He may be glorified by those that praise Him.  If Jesus was not God but just a man, then what He did on the cross was not a tribute to God but a tribute to man.  You can call that religion.  But, since Jesus is God, then Jesus honored the Father through his tribute on the cross and put men to shame for their wickedness.  The person believing will have to face the fear of oppression when it comes to Jesus.  Do they keep it God-made and God-centered in the Gospel, or do they alter it to be man-made and man-centered?  People who cling to religion do so not out of love for God, but for love of themselves; whether it is to escape trouble by going to heaven, or escape hell to settle for a better deal.  The Gospel is God's story, not man's.

Religion, came much later, when the Romans wanted to solidify what it meant to be a Christian in the Roman Empire.  (c. 325 C.E.)  This was done at the request of Constantine I and legislated through a series of councils, starting at the Council of Nicea, where the Nicene Creed was developed.  Before this, we see Christians having nothing to call Christian but the Spirit within them that helped them endure the seemingly endless oppression at the hands of the people that called them fools. 

  You mean, the Jesus of the Bible?

Marquis, I've already proven you wrong in this assumption.  You must go by another Jesus than the one that everyone came to know of through the Bible if you insist to support him.  Maybe you are talking about a Spanish man living in Central America??

  Yes, a Jew as a matter of fact.  And He was God.  I don't know too many men that can raise from the dead on their own permission.

  The Jesus of Revelation 19 that slays men with the sword that comes out of His mouth?  The Jesus that treads the winepress of God's wrath?  He doesn't sound like a hippie to me....

  For you, you mean?  Why should I forget my conscience and where it is at just to express an idea?  I understand that we all have our beliefs, and they differ.  But I don't hold on belief and call the others valid.  There is no wisdom in doing such thing, for it goes against conviction.  I have often found conviction to be the wise ruler of my members to produce the best and most virtuous fruits in my life.  If I go against it just to appease others, then I have admitted that I don't even believe in my belief.

  I thought that this was a forum full of rational people.  Where is the rationality in your response?  I see more emotion than rationality in your words.  You call me a hypocrite, which indeed I have been.  Yet you are so intolerant and hateful toward me?  Sir, I'd rather call you friend than enemy.  We can learn much more from each other that way.

Thanks for showing everyone that atheism is not the answer to social woes.  Take care.

 damn Atheistextremist you beat me to it Matty how can you honestly make these claims? by your logic i could read a comic book and say the same shit about my favorite super hero.

 

 

hmmmm...i smell arguments for the historicity of the bible coming...

get ready to smash 'em, boys!

 

Wow, I guess it is true what Jesus said to his disciples, "....and the love of most will wax cold." 

It's interesting how you only noticed Martin Luther, never cited your source, and continued on ignoring the argument I posed, which was the difference between the Gospel and the gospels.  I find it deceiving what you said, and wonder if anyone else challenged your accusation of Martin Luther.  But I guess it's typical of irrational people to ridicule men so that the viewers no longer consider the argument.  I will not stand for it though.  Also, Martin Luther was a reformer, the inquisition was Catholic, and nobody follows their religion to the 'tee.'  That's because they are human, not gods. 

"These French Protestants were inspired by the German monk Martin Luther and then generally followed the teachings of John Calvin, a French theologian who preached in Geneva from 1537 to 1564."

http://www.huguenotsociety.org/history_new2.htm

And yes, Nero did torch Rome and blamed the Christians.  To downplay suffering is evidence of a degenerating heart.  I really think this might be my last conversation with you sir.  Also, I wonder if you have ever suffered.  Do you have a story to tell about your sufferings?