• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Problem of Dualism in Atheism and Theism

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Don't mistake the argument you've imagined that I'm making for what I'm actually saying.


"How could there possibly be blue things in my house unless my house is blue, too?!"
your whole body is a neural network and it processes work off the peripheral and central nervous system. this makes up what you consider consciousness. the body is consciousness. now the qualitative part that you call blue isn't something separate from that house.



Plants communicate distress using their own kind of nervous system.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
your whole body is a neural network and it processes work off the peripheral and central nervous system. this makes up what you consider consciousness. the body is consciousness. now the qualitative part that you call blue isn't something separate from that house.
Irrelevant. The properties of a component of the whole does not necessarily imply the properties of the whole.

Every cell in your body is invisible to the naked eye. Do you think this means that *you* are invisible to the naked eye?




And what percentage of the universe is made up of plants? Percentage by mass or percentage by volume - either is fine.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
then why are you commenting about it; if you don't have anything to consider?


your humility seems feigned


Sheesh, public thread, and my personal take on your OP.

And perhaps yours knows no bounds, is universal in fact
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Irrelevant. The properties of a component of the whole does not necessarily imply the properties of the whole.

Every cell in your body is invisible to the naked eye. Do you think this means that *you* are invisible to the naked eye?
the inner eye is much more powerful.

theory is much more powerful than fact. it is theory that leads us to discover more knowledge and evolve.





IAnd what percentage of the universe is made up of plants? Percentage by mass or percentage by volume - either is fine.
i posted that as a proof that a brain isn't necessary for consciousness to exist at some level. a neural pathway is necessary for consciousness.

i don't have to be aware of everything in the universe. i only have to be aware of what i'm doing immediately, NOW.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
the inner eye is much more powerful.

theory is much more powerful than fact. it is theory that leads us to discover more knowledge and evolve.
You missed my point. That's okay.



i posted that as a proof that a brain isn't necessary for consciousness to exist at some level. a neural pathway is necessary for consciousness.
The term "proof" is overly generous, IMO.


i don't have to be aware of everything in the universe. i only have to be aware of what i'm doing immediately, NOW.
Good for you?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
so obviously self is a part of the All, Absolute, Nature, Universe. it exists within and not without.

obviously if self is conscious, then the universe, nature, all, absolute is conscious because self exists in this observation.


the problem arises from the self as an observer believing self is separate from the nature inherent. nothing can exist apart from it. this is literally maya and lila at work. god, love is mind that takes a myriad forms and yet has no exclusive form


what is the problem NOW? got something on your mind? going to deny consciousness?


spirituality is literally a synonym for mentality.


ring the bells hell hath no fury like a woman scorned



obviously if self is conscious, then the universe, nature, all, absolute is conscious because self exists in this observation.

I suppose you could argue that human consciousness is the 'consciousness' of the universe. However, if you're trying to suggest that the universe itself possesses a separate consciousness you're going to have to provide some actual evidence.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
obviously if self is conscious, then the universe, nature, all, absolute is conscious because self exists in this observation.

I suppose you could argue that human consciousness is the 'consciousness' of the universe. However, if you're trying to suggest that the universe itself possesses a separate consciousness you're going to have to provide some actual evidence.
there is no separateness. that is the problem. the universe isn't separate from self, nor is self separate from the universe, i am that i am


a dualist would think of consciousness as separate from the physical or the physical as separate from consciousness.


consciousness is a physical thing. i am a form of it
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
there is no separateness. that is the problem


a dualist would think of consciousness as separate from the physical or the physical as separate from the consciousness.


consciousness is a physical thing

Really? I don't think of consciousness as being separate from the physical. In fact I contend that all of the evidence indicates that a physical brain is a requirement for consciousness. So I'm not claiming that my consciousness is in any way separate from the universe... but how does me possessing consciousness indicate in any way that the universe itself possesses an individual consciousness of its own?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Really? I don't think of consciousness as being separate from the physical. In fact I contend that all of the evidence indicates that a physical brain is a requirement for consciousness. So I'm not claiming that my consciousness is in any way separate from the universe... but how does me possessing consciousness indicate in any way that the universe itself possesses an individual consciousness of its own?
a neural network is necessary for consciousness but a brain isn't per se.



again, your reductionism is the problem. the sum is greater than it's parts
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
a neural network is necessary for consciousness but a brain isn't per se.



again, your reductionism is the problem. the sum is greater than it's parts

a neural network is necessary for consciousness but a brain isn't per se.

Then please provide me with an example of consciousness existing without a physical brain. Otherwise you're simply making a claim without absolutely no evidence to back it up.

again, your reductionism is the problem. the sum is greater than it's parts

That's just another unsubstantiated claim. Care to provide any evidence?
 

Irate State

Äkta människor
obviously if self is conscious, then the universe, nature, all, absolute is conscious because self exists in this observation.

And then:
And just like a human consciousness varies at different levels in different forms, but the universe is conscious. No human is necessary

Something's not adding up to me. Care to clarify, please?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
a neural network is necessary for consciousness but a brain isn't per se.

Then please provide me with an example of consciousness existing without a physical brain. Otherwise you're simply making a claim without absolutely no evidence to back it up.

again, your reductionism is the problem. the sum is greater than it's parts

That's just another unsubstantiated claim. Care to provide any evidence?
A person is more than a brain.

I've provided links through out this thread that show neural networks in other life forms.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
so obviously self is a part of the All, Absolute, Nature, Universe. it exists within and not without.

obviously if self is conscious, then the universe, nature, all, absolute is conscious because self exists in this observation.

Nope. That's not 'obvious', that's 'opinionative'.
You're suggesting that people have consciousness (okay).
You're suggesting that people are part of the universe (okay).
You're suggesting that the universe is therefore conscious, because parts of the universe are conscious.

That logic simply leads to a definition of the universe where any of it's contingent parts equate to the whole. The universe is salty and sweet. Bitter and sour. Old and young. Dead and unborn.

At this point, the word universe ceases to hold any meaning.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
There is some part of atheist and deist in everyone. It is like that little imitation voice that tells you to buy a cake, though you are diabetic and on a diet. You argue with that urge, and one side or the other wins out.

The most important point is that we must speak out to stop those who we vote for, because sometimes they work against God. God said "thou shalt not kill" yet look at all of the wars that have been fought by the Religious Right's choices for presidents.

I believe that even an atheist could go to heaven long before a sinning theist does.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Nope. That's not 'obvious', that's 'opinionative'.
You're suggesting that people have consciousness (okay).
You're suggesting that people are part of the universe (okay).
You're suggesting that the universe is therefore conscious, because parts of the universe are conscious.

That logic simply leads to a definition of the universe where any of it's contingent parts equate to the whole. The universe is salty and sweet. Bitter and sour. Old and young. Dead and unborn.

At this point, the word universe ceases to hold any meaning.
if the universe is not conscious then self is not conscious. self is not greater than the universe.


the reality is the observer isn't separate from the universe. you can't claim to know something about the universe while ignoring the observer who makes the claim and excludes the self that made it. this is what your typical dualist does. this is what you're doing.



Reality is the universe, self cannot be removed from it. cannot be exclusively objective about it. better to observe the observer than make such a claim of objective observance.


self can't claim the universe isn't conscious because the observer can see parts of the universe is conscious. there is no way of knowing the whole universe is conscious because self would have to be able to control the universe, be greater than the universe, or be the universe, to know that. that isn't going to happen at a human level.


so yes, the universe is conscious on at least different levels given what we know about consciousness in its many forms on earth.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
it doesn't matter what self believes; especially when the obvious is self-evident
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
A person is more than a brain.

I've provided links through out this thread that show neural networks in other life forms.

In other words you CAN NOT provide a single example of consciousness existing without a physical brain. Thus all you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims.

Thanks for playing.
 
Top