Could consciousness be an illusion?

[ametist]

Okay, now give an explanation why you would think so.

Thinking needs a process or analysis of many different input from outer world and for my thinking to be clear to you we should be using the same identifible data input from the outer world. I didnt come to this understanding through thinking and even if I did it would take quite a while to reconcile my thinking with yours for above mentioned reasons
Thanks for the invite though.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No one can seem to identify consciousness empirically, but everyone realizes its there.

Because they are all too concerned with the philosophy or the spirituality of it all rather than getting down to the root cause of consciousness...the physics.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Thinking needs a process or analysis of many different input from outer world and for my thinking to be clear to you we should be using the same identifible data input from the outer world. I didnt come to this understanding through thinking and even if I did it would take quite a while to reconcile my thinking with yours for above mentioned reasons
Thanks for the invite though.

Yes, we do all send and receive these signals or data differently and therefore our brains interpret that data differently. A good point you make actually. While everything may be connected in some way, that does not make us all one collective consciousness like the Borg. We still have our own individual and unique feelings, emotions, likes and dislikes.

 

[ametist]

Yes, We are a borg in a sense. existence of common eye sight, language, music prove it. Underlying glue to them is consciousness. Yet we dont know how common our eye sight is because we have an individual interpretation of it. Did you know some prophets could communicate with wild animals? I dont think it is a myth at all.

 

[nazz]

I disagree with the argument that consciousness is physical simply based on the fact that the physical substrates which give rise to the conscious experience are correlated but not causal. They're called the neural correlates of consciousness for that very reason. Yes one can argue that dopamine causes pleasure, but pleasure is not a physical thing, it's a subjective inner experience. We have no idea how dopamine causes pleasure, all we know is that increasing amount of it gives us more pleasure. If you want to invoke the principle of strong emergence, then you are basically acknowledging that matter can give rise to completely novel properties in nature never seen before, aka magic (I mean Gandalf/Harry Potter magic, not the illusory kind). And one can argue that strong emergence is a form of property dualism. The conscious experience is completely different from the physical substrates which give rise to it.

There are no colors, no sounds, no feelings, no emotions and no meaning in physical reality. And these are all irreducible. Red doesn't break down into smaller red. Most people who support dualism (whether it be property or substance) don't deny that the brain is intricately involved in the creation of consciousness. They're simply saying that the experience itself is not purely due to the brain, that there is another property at play here and that property is perhaps another fundamental layer of the universe we haven't come across as of yet.

Exactly.

 

[nazz]

Hypothetically speaking, if some other "fundamental layer" has existed since the beginning of time, would it not be because it has just always naturally existed along with all the other fundamental layers or forces? If this other hidden aspect or fundamental layer does in fact exist, why would it have to be considered "supernatural"?

Or put it this way... If science were to discover or prove that this other fundamental layer or property actually does exist, would it still have to be considered something "supernatural"? What if science discovered that God actually existed...would God still be something supernatural to us? Or would we think he must have just always existed...naturally?

It seems to me that just right up to the point when we discover that something previously unknown to us actually does exist, it no longer becomes supernatural to us, it becomes natural. At one time diseases or sicknesses used to be considered of supernatural origin. We generally end up realizing that all these things we previously thought were supernatural actually have a basis in physical reality.

I don't believe in "supernatural" things. I believe the are naturally existing unknowns to science, and there are those things we dream up or imagine which simply do not exist.


---

The only people I see using the word "supernatural" are physicalists. It's a straw man.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, We are a borg in a sense. existence of common eye sight, language, music prove it. Underlying glue to them is consciousness. Yet we dont know how common our eye sight is because we have an individual interpretation of it. Did you know some prophets could communicate with wild animals? I dont think it is a myth at all.

I do indeed communicate with animals shamanically.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The only people I see using the word "supernatural" are physicalists. It's a straw man.

Yes it is a straw man, and so is (in my opinion) the notion of something non-physical. I believe only that which is physical exists.

 

[nazz]

Yes it is a straw man, and so is (in my opinion) the notion of something non-physical. I believe only that which is physical exists.

Did you ever consider that the physical and non-physical could be two forms of the same thing? When you use the word "physical" you necessarily limit things. Unless you change the definition it doesn't cover all that exists. Trying to force consciousness into the physical is trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit.

 

[nazz]

I do indeed communicate with animals shamanically.

OK. sorry, but I just need to point something out here. You are talking about something physically impossible yet you are argue that everything is physical. It's not consistent.

 

[idav]

Did you ever consider that the physical and non-physical could be two forms of the same thing? When you use the word "physical" you necessarily limit things. Unless you change the definition it doesn't cover all that exists. Trying to force consciousness into the physical is trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit.

What is physical supposed to mean? What does the physical universe mean? It covers everything.

 

[nazz]

What is physical supposed to mean? What does the physical universe mean? It covers everything.

It doesn't though. That's the point my side keeps pointing out.

 

[idav]

It doesn't though. That's the point my side keeps pointing out.

Yet it does, science has shown it. There is no distinction and I showed the difference. You had a hard time with even sound being physical, it is an example of an unseen physical process people like to think is immaterial. Immaterial means nothing, everything has physical properties.

 

[nazz]

Yet it does, science has shown it. There is no distinction and I showed the difference. You had a hard time with even sound being physical, it is an example of an unseen physical process people like to think is immaterial. Immaterial means nothing, everything has physical properties.

Well see, this is why it is pointless to debate this because it comes down to yes it is, no it isn't.

 

[idav]

Well see, this is why it is pointless to debate this because it comes down to yes it is, no it isn't.

Yeah but the naturalists have evidence and the other side just says "nuh uh its not" with no evidence. Guess which side I think is more likely.

 

[Runewolf1973]

OK. sorry, but I just need to point something out here. You are talking about something physically impossible yet you are argue that everything is physical. It's not consistent.

I consider shamanism another form of what people call "energy healing". Basically, all the things that I visualize when I am doing a shamanic healing are actually physical in nature. This is because I am picking up physical signals from that other person and my mind interprets those as being animals, colors, etc... The image my mind sees may be partly an illusion, but it is just the way my mind interprets those energy patterns. In turn, I utilize my own mind and my energy "field" to send back physical signals to that other person's mind or body which I am doing the healing on. These signals or energy patterns unknowingly affect the body or mind of that other person and promote a physical change (chemical interaction) in the person which results in healing. This is why after a shaman does conduct a ritual healing, it is necessary for them to in a way "purge" themselves of any residual (potentially harmful) energy which they may have picked up from that other person. If a shaman does not do this "purging", then this residual energy may in turn cause the shaman himself to pick up a corresponding illness or sickness. I have noticed that after conducting a healing, I do tend to get sick more easily and sometimes my own energy feels down. I guess I need to learn to "purge" this residual energy better.


---

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Could consciousness be an illusion?

Not only could it, but for many people, it appears that it most certainly is - and in many cases, may not exist at all.

 

[Willamena]

Could consciousness be an illusion?

Not only could it, but for many people, it appears that it most certainly is - and in many cases, may not exist at all.

For dead people, certainly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For dead people, certainly.

Yeah, them too.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Could consciousness be an illusion?

Not only could it, but for many people, it appears that it most certainly is - and in many cases, may not exist at all.

I believe we think it exists because we have these feelings, and we may think it is some mysterious thing separate from the rest of what is a physical reality, but it is not. It is all physical, not non-physical.