consciousness is not necessary for existence — EricH

This assertion fails — Punshhh

Why? It certainly fails no less than

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

Rather

1. necessity = holds in all possible (self-consistent) worlds
2. say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory
3. consciousness does not figure in (the boring) R³
4. consciousness is not necessary

@EricH's assertion is therefore justified moreso than @3017amen's.

Right, .
Bridging the gap seems a bit out still.
Supposing we could, could we then also disprove solipsism? (Vice versa?)
There seems to be a relation of sorts anyway; implications of "a bridge" might shed light on other things.

My red is an occurrence. A part of me when occurring.
Seems nonsensical that my red could be your red exactly.
Though, when occurring as a consequence of interaction with something extra-self, you might partake in a similar interaction with that.
Et voilà, we can use verbiage like "red" when talking about those experiences of those things. (y)
So, it's not so much that "my red is the same as yours", more that there's enough interactional stability that we can find coherent ways to talk about it.

_{• we can correlate such experiences with wavelengths/frequencies of light to a fair extent
• synesthesia is when such interaction triggers additional, uncommon experiences
• color blindness is when someone can't differentiate colors that others commonly can, opposite tetrachromacy}

So still nutn' then, . Just raising a whole lot of ignorance, pretending it entails ... Jesus.

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

Still nothing? Here's the exercise again. And an earlier one:

Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love — jorndoe

"TRUMP INTERVIEW" — A Bad Lip Reading (5m:2s youtube)

:D

, or there are just things whose existence is independent of me. *ding*ding*

Only dogmatists and platonists put forward their opinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion. — Asif

There is no truth independent of human perception. — Asif

Kind of odd that we sometimes get things wrong, then, and sometimes discover (distinct from invent) new things.
Self-elevation. Subjective idealism. Gross. (n)

What would give you that impression? I'm a Christian Existentialist and proud of it lol! — 3017amen

Seems like you were championing agnosticism. I guess not?

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

^{(Memory loss? Short attention span? Scatterbrain? ...?)}
Linked right in the comment, you can't have missed it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443074

Should we take the sentiment that you promote to be agnostic theist, @3017amen?
Noticed you didn't take up the challenge, despite continuing talk about consciousness.

Two rather different propositions:

• life and consciousness came about in the universe, consciousness can come about in the universe
• Vishnu/Yahweh installed and installs consciousness in biological lifeforms in the universe

The former is a matter of (neutral) observations, the latter is, well, a kind of (fantastic) story-telling.
We don't have exhaustive knowledge of life consciousness whatever, but we do know things thereof.
If anyone claim they can justify the latter beyond mere religious faith, then please go ahead.
@3017amen? (this would work, rather than passive-aggressive rambling) (y)
The truth of the matter has no dependency on whatever some humans happen to believe or not.

In Christianity Jesus existed — 3017amen

I thought you were making claims independent of whatever some humans believe or not? :brow:
It's not like beliefs make it so.

, could you at least try to stick with the comment? Your response indicated that you didn't quite read it (or didn't understand it, or didn't want to understand it).

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? — 3017amen

No.

Repeating: ad hominem is typically when someone's argument is dismissed because of their (perceived) character, or something similar that's irrelevant to their argument, a kind of non sequitur.

I'm not following you — 3017amen

Seems like it. (Alternatively, you don't want to.) Try again?

So, , those nebulous indeterminate definitions typically put forth by faith apologists (and I think some were posted earlier in this thread) means nihilism? Odd. I doubt that's what they wanted.

God is consciousness — 3017amen

One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), personified nature, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism.

Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

When gods were (are) invented, others have asked (ask) the inventors "Why the tall tales?" ;)

Jesus was known to be part God — 3017amen

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man — 3017amen

Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history — 3017amen

More tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by @Punshhh) is applicable.

, I don't think you read the comment right.
The vague definitions are for epistemic evasion. Do you call those definitions nihilism?

There are gods for all occasions. Most people, past and present, disbelieve/d the vast majority of them or never heard of them; they never show anyway, and sure aren't shown.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession?

Listen,there is zero proof of covid 19. The test are bogus. Even by your own medical science covid has not fulfilled any of kochs postulates. To say nothing that germ theory is an unproven totally inaccurate assertion. [...] — Asif

wtf? :D

, you're putting far too many words in atheism's mouth. :)

from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’ — define atheism

Jedi are supposedly atheists, albeit of a rather odd sort.

Agreed, but so what? — Hippyhead

'cuz no manner of human fabulation makes it so; rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts.

Implications of G's foreknowledge of our world is one thing, G's own freedom another.
G does not have time to have freedom (or "free will", if there is such a thing).
Can G find the free will to change G's own mind, after already having been omniscient prior?
Supposedly, G always has perfect (fore)knowledge, so G can't ever change G's own mind.
Here omniscience means no freedom.
Furthermore, if G is "atemporal", then G cannot have freedom.
There is necessarily a disconnect between atemporality and temporality; anything strangely atemporal cannot be subject to causation, for example; there can be no atemporal listeners as it were.
Is there a possible world, for which G changes mind?
If yes, then G can change mind; if no, then it's impossible.
This stuff goes for any G by the way; Shiva and Yahweh are just among the casualties thereof, unintended manmade casualties.

Seems you want to refer to "the unknowable", ?
I don't think a whole lot denies that there are unknowns. Surely I'm not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were.
Wanting to eff the ineffable and make it into a religion no less, is already striding too far from what was already asserted.
With reasoning ruled out, evidence ruled out, human abilities ruled out, ..., there isn't a whole lot left, not epistemic anyway.
Perhaps there's a kind of "spirituality" in embracing "the unknown" after a fashion, yet that's about one self (not "otherworldly" sentient almighty super-beings).
Besides, this is a far cry from the (vast) majority of religions, elaborate religious faiths that people declare in public (with a lot of social consequences), that they declare apply to all of us, heck everything for that matter (the universe pales in comparison it seems). And, if I'm understanding your sentiment (which I probably don't), they also declare that you're wrong.

The measure of wealth in a civilized nation is not the currency accumulated by the lucky few, but rather the strength and resonance of social relations and the bonds of reciprocity that connect all people in common purpose. — Wade Davis

Maybe such a social ethic is where the US lost out.
I'm guessing poor or lack of good, general education is a factor, but that's just conjecture on my part.
US elections always seem to have a disproportional focus on taxes.
I have personally interacted with your "good American Baptist soccer mom" that has the hots for Trump in public (in some cases more or less regardless of what he says and does, by their own admission), seemingly intelligent fools that cite the Constitution to justify trampling COVID-19 health protocols, ... To me, this gives off a whiff of adults that never became adults.

Is there something - anything - positive in this? — Banno

I guess it depends on what the replacement is or will be.
Dominance by the Chinese regime or Russia sure doesn't seem preferable.
I wouldn't count the US out yet, though.

OK , and welcome to the forums. So, what warrants dis/belief anyway? (Or some such preachery indoctrination proselytizing, for that matter?)

, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread.


_{(what to (not) believe, ..., The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps), solipsism, dream thought experiments, intangible hobs that can control the weather, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings, Last Thursdayism, ..., what about stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after his demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ...)}

You get to the bus stop in the morning, wondering if you're late, so you ask someone already there.
In one scenario they respond "sorry, you missed it by a few minutes".
In another scenario they respond "sorry, it landed and flew off already".
Anyone with active gray matter and good sense would likely believe the former and dismiss the latter.
But, hey, given proportional and relevant evidence, you might believe that the bus is flying.
Anecdotes are both the most common and the weakest kind of evidence.
So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference? (@Frank Apisa? @Punshhh?)

I thought the Bible was an account of historical events that occurred in time — 3017amen

Believe if you like. That's what Christians do. — tim wood

Well, and occasionally they were just told what to believe, and forgot they were told (or never grew up).

Say, the existential proposition "there is a flying vehicle" is unfalsifiable but verifiable.
The universal proposition "no vehicles can fly" is falsifiable but not verifiable.
(... with the implicit assumption that the domain of discourse is indefinite.)
So, when should we (not) expect proof?

It's all about information and wisdom... ! — 3017amen

... and tall tales and imaginary friends.

I thought the Bible was an account of historical events — 3017amen

Hint: if you go by Jefferson's edition then you'll be a little closer.

Some time ago, someone argued that, since we share many or most moral sentiments, those morals are independent of us.
I'm not convinced that holds up.

In analogy, many or most of us have two arms with five fingers each.
However, that does not mean that such "arm+finger'ness" somehow exists independently of the lot with such limbs.
Should an extinction occur, such "limb'ness" may no longer exist (per se), but could re-emerge again.
In such an event, the likes of love and hate may equally have vanished, but could be rediscovered again.

Why would our moral sentiments be exempt?
It seems that morals are by and for and applicable to experiencing minds (at large).
Surely we don't speak of rights (and justice and virtues) for rocks? :)

Much like the other examples, morals can exist independently of any individual, but seemingly not independently of the lot of moral agents.
This does not itself entail that morals are ad hoc, random, arbitrary, discretionary, mere matter of opinion.

, if he can, then ...? If he can't, then ...?

, the brain in a vat thought experiment doesn't involve senses as such, just some sort of sufficient stimuli (say, Matrix-style).
Phantom limbs, hallucinations and a few other things ^{(see below)} could perhaps serve as evidence.
Part of the thought experiment (hypothesis) is that the right simulation mechanics/gear could provide Armstrong (or just his gray matter) with sufficient stimuli that it'd be impossible for him to tell the difference, which seems somewhat conceivable (contra Mary's room).
Everything reducible to information and nothing else is another matter, though.
Is the question whether personal experiences and qualia (mind) is reducible to information in some sense?


_{Brain makes decisions before you even know it (Kerri Smith; Apr 2008)
Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep (Horikawa, Tamaki, Miyawaki, Kamitani et al; May 2013)
Brain decoding: Reading minds (Kerri Smith; Oct 2013)
After 15 years in a vegetative state, nerve stimulation restores consciousness (Corazzol, Lio et al; Sep 2017)
Computer system transcribes words users “speak silently” (Larry Hardesty; Apr 2018)
Our brains reveal our choices before we're even aware of them, study finds (Lachlan Gilbert; Mar 2019)}

This arbitrariness of "a value" is just further evidence that having the same value does not imply being the same intelligible object. Otherwise I could arbitrarily say that a chair and a table have the same value to me, therefore they are the same intelligible object. — Metaphysician Undercover

A mathematical value is a type of "worth" — Metaphysician Undercover

So you've really managed to confuzzle value up good and well.

I'm sorry to keep putting you on the hot seat...or maybe you answered them, I couldn't find where you did though... ? — 3017amen

I'm fairly confident you didn't miss ...

Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell. — jorndoe

... given the comments you read.

Tic toc tic toc, LOL — 3017amen

Passive-aggressive diversion and disguised insults doesn't make your case.


_{(as an aside, as far as you can be concerned here, I might believe there are little green men on Mars that possess supernatural magic, Shaivist mysticism, voodoo sorcery or otherwise, i.e. don't attribute something to me personally here that I haven't stated)}

naive, philosophically — Punshhh

Naïve, uncritical, gullible, malleable, credulous, "seeing faces in the clouds", ..., philosophically or otherwise?

Not sure I understood your comment right, entirely possible I misread, in which case discard: Per earlier, in what way does an adult's non-naïveté (or epistemic attitude) demand that they take into account, incorporate thoughts of, intangible hobs that can control the weather in their lives? (Should their spouse family friends be concerned?) If absent in any way that matters, then in/consistency between epistemic attitude and real life comes-to-the-fore.

humans, who are evolved to [...] — Punshhh

Some of the claimants (including @3017amen if memory serves) have difficulties with biological evolution. :confused:

about universal, or remote origins — Punshhh

Are we talking grandeurs by which the universe pales?

The claimants will typically also have it that their super-beings can hide entirely from us, but we cannot hide from them, which seems mostly like post-rationalization.

A kind of rationalization going on here converges on a particular category of propositions, p, so that both p and ¬p are compatible with attainable evidence. Sometimes by design (intent-to-rescue), sometimes not.

normal rational concerns are mute in answering it — Punshhh

Sometimes by design, immunized from counter/evidence. What's left? Epic experiences, personal revelations, ...?

"And where's Jesus?" :)

Now we're talkin'!!!! — 3017amen

Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell. — jorndoe

Then we'd be talkin'. (y)

Tic toc tic toc, LOL — 3017amen

take your silence, as acquiescence — 3017amen

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence) — Frank Apisa

(there cannot be a separate explanation for existence, since then that explanation would then not exist, but that's peripheral to @3017amen's burden here)

, even if knowledge was reducible to "information", or qualia was, then that does not entail all is reducible to "information".

There's a whole class of these kinds of thought experiments ... Brain in a vat (Wikipedia), Dream argument (Wikipedia), Simulated reality (Wikipedia), Simulation hypothesis (Wikipedia), The Matrix as Metaphysics (Chalmers), Zhuangzi (book) » "The Butterfly Dream" (Wikipedia), Zhuangzi And That Bloody Butterfly (Tallis), Maya (religion) (Wikipedia), Evil demon (Wikipedia), Veil of Isis (Wikipedia)

Consequences of actions in a simulation would have to be implemented in some thorough way to match up with real life, like suicide, starving (not eating) or slapping your neighbor — not symmetrical. If I remember right, death in The Matrix meant death in real life, which seemed a bit odd, but might make for a more entertaining story.

Oddly enough perhaps, the brain in a vat, simulation thing may run contrary to Mary's room.

Maybe the deus deceptor, simulation type thing, is wholly possible, don't know. In some ways it seems likely.

If we're talking epistemics, then we might as well go all out solipsism, yet in this case at least there's an ethical difference — better treat others as sentient even if they aren't, than treating them as not sentient if they are. Not knowing doesn't make a difference in action.

Guard In Video Game Under Strict Orders To Repeatedly Pace Same Stretch Of Hallway (The Onion)

Well, for one, while on his sofa at home remembering back, he wouldn't need an oxygen tank. :)

Suppose some such super-being has really important particulars to tell everyone, perhaps wants to befriend everyone, as claimed by a few out there. Given real-life observations, that sure doesn't seem likely. Unless the being somehow also is deceptive.
There are some examples over here, that comprise reasons for not taking those claims particularly serious.
The more vague that claim, the less specific, the more convergent upon the unknowable ineffable, immunized against counter/evidence, the less particular reason for committing belief therein.

• I see no reason to suspect that intangible hobs that can control the weather CANNOT EXIST
• I see no reason to suspect that intangible hobs that can control the weather MUST EXIST

Yet, I don't recall having made decisions based on them (possibly) being real (along with whatever other such concoctions), don't recall having seriously pondered what they might be up to while doing more important stuff, what I could do to appease them, ... (my better half might get concerned)
If my epistemic attitude somehow was to demand that, then it'd be inconsistent with real life.
But hey, you never know, right...?

Are you suggesting [...] — 3017amen

, the suggestions I made were listed in the comment; maybe others made further suggestions that you somehow attribute to me. Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell.

There isn't that much we know exhaustively, and making stuff up won't do. — jorndoe

180, Tim, jorndoe and others have yet to make their case — 3017amen

Make what case? Waiting for you to make yours. But then ...

I'm confused — 3017amen

Don't put words in others' mouths. :down: There isn't that much we know exhaustively, and making stuff up won't do. Anyway, suggested elsewhere that there's no particular deductive dis/proof regarding some such likes of ...
_{The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)
Solipsism
Dream thought experiments
Intangible hobs that can control the weather
Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings
Last Thursdayism}
...
And that's then relevant to Frank Apisa's sort of (non-committal) agnosticism, of which you missed:

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST — Frank Apisa

it seems very obvious from this thread that many people misunderstand — Metaphysician Undercover

Af far as I can see, you're the only one that don't understand typical use of "value" (e.g., as in variables that may take values, like some/any proposition p in non-contradiction ¬(p ∧ ¬p)). I suppose, if you don't even (want to) try, then so be it.