No, I am afraid you've lost the thread. — SophistiCat

You'll have to explain where your confusion is a little more carefully. I responded clarifying this.

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. — Philosophim

Do you understand that by "necessity", I mean actual, and not potential state? For example, for myself to exist now, I had to exist in the the state prior to now, because that state prior to now existed. We are not talking about possibilities, but actuals in this case. For example, I could have 3 possibilities that could cause X to occur, but when X occurs, then one of those causal possibilities is an actuality, and no longer a possible potential.

Does that clarify? And if you're still confused, try to point out in the explanation where I've lost you.

Perhaps you should read the points of the OP Tim Wood. A first cause does not necessarily need to be anything, as it is a first cause. First I demonstrate why it is logically necessary that there must exist a first cause. But, this first cause does not have to be a God, I only introduce that after the fact. In looking to my conclusions that there must be a first cause within the line of causality, do you see an error? After that, check out how I define the philosophical God. Is there a problem with that? This is one issue in which the OP itself must be taken into consideration, and not other people's responses.

It appears - I could be wrong and I have not read the whole thread - that there is confusion between and about man-made deities and actual deities. — tim wood

I think that is people placing their own outlooks into the argument, which sometimes happens in these discussions. This is a new take on the cosmological argument, which uses a philosophical God, and one that I have defined very specifically in the points. Your posts are always appreciated Tim Wood!

What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. — Hippyhead

No Hippy, what you're attempting to do is a one-sided point of your own ego which has devolved into trolling. I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. If you continue to post in this thread, I will report you for trolling. The mods have plenty of our posts to look through here.

Yes. It seems to me that the morality and purpose given to a believer and the morality and purpose that has to be determined by an atheist are the same. — Brett

I assume your idea of purpose and morality is essentially what a Christian God is all about. — Brett

No, it sounds like you've never been part of a religion before. I do not believe I have to keep holy on the sabbath day. I do not believe in condemning people who are gay. I do not believe in spreading the gospel of Jesus. I do not believe the Israelites are God's chosen. I do not believe that there is life after death.

There are also far more religions than Christianity. If I were a Muslim, I would not need to keep the pillars anymore. I would not need to visit Mecah. I would not believe that Mahamud is the prophet.

Remember how I stated religion tells you what morality is, while atheism means you have to determine it yourself? There are many conclusions that are drawn differently. I even noted that some atheists conclude there is no morality, and believe there is no purpose in life.

Does this clarify the difference?

Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time. — Hippyhead

I'm surprised to see you back Hippy. The only thing I'm reminded of is that you were soundly and utterly refuted when you could not answer the points I gave you. =) A good memory for sure on my end. But unless you have anything substantial to add to the forum, I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion.

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense? — Philosophim

No, this won't work. Suppose A was caused by B, but it could alternatively have been caused by C. Neither B nor C are necessary for A to occur. — SophistiCat

Let me clarify for you, as I worried people will interpret it that way. I did not mean to imply potential prior states by "necessary". I mean actual prior states. Sure, A could be caused by B or C potentially. But in this case, A is caused by B. Therefore B is necessarily the prior cause of the A. Perhaps a better set of terms would be B is the actual cause of the actual A?

Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense?

I frankly find topics like causality to be more fun puzzles. — SophistiCat

Well, the entire thing is a puzzle of causality, so keep at it!

Well here I partly beg off. — Antony Nickles

All good, I give you full credit for attempting it! This is actually a classic twist on the cosmological argument for God. Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?"

If we are not considering "chains of multiple first causes" (moral chains, chains of actions, of identity, etc.) other than the creation of the "universe", then I'm not sure I can help. — Antony Nickles

I think you still can. The point of the puzzle is this is something original. No one has been trained in it. Its a challenge to tackle that just requires some logical thinking. And no, its not easy. It is no reflection on your capability whether you can, or cannot solve it. It is merely for fun to get you thinking. I will reveal the solution any time you feel like you're finished.

"If the "universe" is just the first thing created, than the question thins out so much as to not hold anything; if you mean the universe to include everything without exception (the "universe" of possible/inevitable things), then everything is caused initially together."

I'll requote where I introduce what a universe is.

8. What is a specific universe? It is a universe down to its exact positioning of the smallest molecule. Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. For our purposes, let us imagine that the prime cause in our universe is the big bang. — Philosophim

So a good eye on the fact that this does not clarify your concern. That is an excellent criticism. To clarify, no, the universe is not order of things created, it is the sum total of its causal parts. The prime cause of a universe is a first cause. But earlier we noted that there is nothing to prevent more than one first cause. So a universe could have started with two or more first causes. Or a universe could have began, and then first causes happened within that universe with no initial connective causality to anything within the first causal chain.

Even so, the entirety of those chains together would be the "universe". This does force me to tweak my claim I made earlier though. Instead of a universe being formed infinite to one by a God, its more like a first cause is formed with the infinite to one probability of being a God.

So, read over again my logic in how I conclude the infinite to one numbers. Instead of there being a certain power and knowledge requirement to create a specific universe, lets call it a power and knowledge requirement to make a specific causal chain from a first cause. This is a new avenue for me, and could be quite confusing. So if you are willing to explore this, feel free. If not, just request the original answer from me, and I'll gladly give it.

You're on the right train of thought with the first paragraph. You're overthinking it with the second paragraph. This is a philosophical God very strictly defined as "Having the knowledge and power requirements to create a specific universe". There is no mention of anything else. So dismiss all else. Morality? Not important. Immortality? Not important. Old man with beard or Spaghetti Monster? Unimportant. =)

Everything you need to consider to solve the issue is within the strictly defined definitions and words. Anything outside of these terms is irrelevant. So that being the case, consider how I conclude the probability of a God being a first cause is infinite to one. Does having multiple possible first causes negate my reasoning for claiming this?

↪Philosophim

Proof of another creature's belief?

:brow:

What would count as proof of that for you? — creativesoul

What you must prove is that another creatures belief cannot be put into a statement. One way to prove this is to attempt to genuinely put it into a statement, then show how that forms a contradiction.

You have to give an example CreativeSoul. What belief cannot be put into a statement? Its like saying, "There is an undetectable unicorn". You must give proof of its existence. If you can't, then we're not talking about anything real.

Here, have we thought about the possibility that both are the case? — Antony Nickles

Yes. There can be multiple first causes. But what is necessarily concluded is that all causality reduces down to a first cause. There may be separate causality chains that reduce down to separate first causes. This may be a step in countering the conclusion I made, but it alone is not enough to counter the conclusion I made. Can you flesh it out and show why this counters the claim?

If you are going to question the idea of causality, a definition here should clear up what is intended.
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense?

Hi TVCL, sorry for the late response on this. Your philosophy is your own. If you wish to take it down that route, that is your choice. Just know that the criticism I gave of knowing truth will come back again and again, especially if you wish to make this better than a layman's theory. I am not saying you are wrong to conclude as you are, just spend a lot of time thinking on how best to answer these criticisms from people who are serious about epistemology. If you cannot give an adequate answer to their criticisms, it will cause a fatal hole in your theory.

And yes, I understand about the writing! I've been there myself, I'm glad my points helped. Keep at it, there's a lot of promise here!

I am going to be back on these boards a lot more this week, even with Christmas. I look forward to your details on choosing models!

So going back to my question, what exactly is it that atheists have chosen over being a believer? It seems to me the “truths” they believe in are the same as the believers. — Brett

I believe I attempted to answer that question, but to sum it up succinctly, believers are under the impression that there is a greater power. Atheists don't believe there is a greater power. Morality and purpose is given to a believer, while morality and purpose have to be determined by an atheist. Is there something else beyond this you are curious about?

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God?
— Philosophim

Yes. — Brett

A fantastic question then. Some atheists don't understand why people stay religious, even though "rationality" reveals the lack of evidence for the truth of the religious tenants. I do not view people who hold religion as lacking rationality, as many are good people who want to hold onto morals and a purpose in life. Good people will often hold onto morals and purpose in life, even if there are some underlying rational questions they have not answered.

And on the flip side, I hope you don't view atheists as "rational" but bad people who reject purpose and morality. The reason I started philosophy many years ago was to answer the questions of God, knowledge, and morality. Why are we here? What's it all for?

My conclusion after all these years is that we are a part of the existence all around us. Instead of a void, there are things. Life and non life are all jumbled together into this beautiful set of physical and chemical interactions that make something, over there being nothing.

We are parts of existence that have gained the gift or curse of realizing what we are. Of getting to see reality in a way beyond ourselves. Of being able to imagine a reality of what the world can be, and shape it. In this journey, you either come to appreciate it and love it, or resent it and reject it. The path to heaven or hell. Some people resent other existence. Try to tear it down if its beautiful. Some resent themselves. Some hate it all. They have seen the world, they see it as an abyss, and wish all of it would end.

Others, like myself, see the beauty of it all. We are amazed by the complexity. We love seeing other people live out their passions and dreams. We love the struggle of being able to live out our own passions and dreams. We go along our way, understanding we're all in this existence together, working, laughing, dreaming, and one day dying. So we make the best of the time we have. We help others have an easier and happier day. We do pursue our own dreams, but we try to elevate others along the way, not crush them.

When there is a God, you realize you have a choice. But your purpose is made for you, and you are set to follow that, or reject that. When there is no God, you realize you have a choice. But you make your own purpose. You are truly free, and you realize the ramifications of what you do are immediate, and not in the future. If I make fun of of a person I don't like so that they feel hurt, there will be no consequence in the afterlife. No reward or punishment. I will have to live with the fact I made another human being like me suffer for my own selfishness. Do I want to live like that? No.

The consequences of life become clear. There is no reward or punishment waiting on the other side. But was that why you wanted to be a moral person originally? Or did you want to be a moral person because it was right? That it made the world a better place? So instead of paving the way for the afterlife, you pave the way for today and tomorrow. Suffering needs to be ended now, as there may not be a later. There is no God who will come along and save people, so you need to do it yourself. It puts moral decisions in very real and stark terms. You understand there is a time limit, so you get things done.

Can a religious person arrive at these conclusions and do these things too? Yes. Some people cannot live in a positive way without the idea of a God or afterlife existing. They need a structure, and people telling them what to do. There is no shame in this, as we are a social race that also craves unity, family, and belongingness. Some people live their life better with atheism, but I also believe some people live their life better with religion.

So in the end, if you do not have the existence of another being dictating your purpose, then you dictate your own purpose. You obtain pure freedom, and the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. I hope that answers your question.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with? — Brett

This is an oddly worded sentence. There is the assumption of replacement. So I am going to make a few assumptions here. Usually belief in God entails

1. Purpose and
2. Morality

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God? Or is there something different you would like to add?

— Philosophim

Well Antony, the original conclusion is infinite to one. And of course, its wrong. =) I haven't visited this in a while, and its interesting to see some of the replies. Most aren't actually examining the puzzle, but that's fine. The puzzle is difficult and that is not easily digested on a forum.

One way to look at it is to remove science and religion labels entirely, and focus at the methods of ascertaining knowledge instead. At its most simple, there is deduction, and induction. What methods do science and religion use to come to their conclusions? How useful and accurate are their methods?

If you're truly interested in uncovering knowledge, epistemology might answer your questions.

I hear ya Mayael. Feel free to post it here again if you would like. I'll keep an eye out for it and promise to give you the good kind of response.

"Perception starts with physical objects; something is physical if it can be perceived." Nothing has been said, and nothing has been elucidated. Rather, reality has been made dependent on observation, which actually smacks of idealism. — unenlightened

No, I'm trying to point out that perception cannot occur without there being a collision of two mediums. Its not an ideal, its simply a fact. You cannot use perception to contradict physicalism, as perception is a physical process. It is a result of physicalism, and not the cause of physicalism. Reality is not dependent upon observation, observation is dependent on reality. And reality, is what is physical.

If you are to counter physicalism, it will have to be something which does not allow the collision of two mediums. And if something can exist that cannot collide with another medium, then it is also beyond perception. An example would be, "nothing". "Nothing" cannot be perceived, only inferred.

Thus we can say reality is composed of the physical, and the nothing. Perhaps there is something else. But you can't use perception, which is a result of a tenant of physicalism called "collision", to contradict physicalism.

Perhaps we should clarify what being perceivable means. All perception starts with contact between two physical objects. We see because light bounces off other objects. We hear words through the physical contact of sound.

So what is physical is perceivable, because perception is a process of contact between two physical objects. That's not circular, that's just a description of a physical process.

Life is about survival. And there are many means to survive. Competition is about winning, not matter the cost. That is not necessarily survival. Sometimes cooperation leads to a better outcome for survival. Sometimes it does not.

Of course, we have an incredible gift, the human brain. We can decide that survival isn't the most important thing in our lives. It is our choice.

A good question. I believe there are plenty of ideas that have not been advocated by thinkers. However, ideas which are largely independent of established knowledge and thought structures seem alien and difficult to understand by people who are used to the traditional structures.

When I was a philosophy student, I came up with a few philosophical ideas that to this day, I have never seen duplicated. I have chatted about them with other people, and brought them to forums over the years. The number one thing I find is people keep trying to relate them to other ideas they already know.

I have encountered the following metaphorical exchange repeatedly.

Them: "Oh, that's like Locke."
Me: Huh, I don't know Locke's position on this. *Reads* Ok, I can see this one point here, but I diverge greatly on this aspect.
Them: But Locke concludes this based on his particular premises here.
Me: As you can see with my argument, I don't have those particular premises, or go that route.
(Optional final responses)
Them: *Blank stare* *Pause* Well ok then. *Leaves conversation* OR
Them: *Ignores anything in the argument that shows its not like Locke's argument, and insists its Locke's argument*
Them: (Rare bird!) "Oh, I see. Well, continue then."

Most people like to think from the perspective of what they already know. Anything that is too foreign or alien to this base, is most often dismissed, ignored, or derided. Very few people have the actual curiosity and intellectual drive to explore that which is alien. And that is why most of the "new ideas" have some aspect of the "old ideas". While this is convenient for the mind to grasp, it also tends to produce very similar results and thinking to the older ways. Thus instead of having leaps in thought or understanding, change is often very slow and gradual.

I appreciate what you are saying and I you are trying to be helpful and stop me wasting my time overthinking But, of course this site is meant to be about debating the questions of philosophy and not just definitive answers, as provided in the name of science. — Jack Cummins

Certainly Jack! I only added that at the end because it is a certainty of life that cannot be rationally concluded in any other way. I do believe questions like, "Why do humans believe they can live after they die?" are questions worth exploring. Same with, "If we know there is no afterlife, how should we live our life today?"

On the question of life after death however, I believe the answer is as solid as you can get from anything in life. We all die. And that is the end.

Fully agreed TheMadFool. We celebrate each year a person has avoided death. We show our appreciation, and well wishes that they have, "Many more". It is celebration and encouragement into the next year!

And finally back in the saddle! Its been a while since I've read these, so pardon me if I miss something.

To the first post:
Doesn't your counter-argument run the risk of making the concept of "truth" convoluted by assuming that when we claim access to truth we claim access to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

To claim that something is true does not necessarily entail that we deem it to be certainly true or objectively true or eternally true etc. Now, I believe that such truths exist but the simple claim that truth is "accordance with reality" appears to be basically tautological and need not bring these other assumptions in which appear to confuse the issue. — TVCL

I believe that's what truth is. You can't really have partial truth. You can have knowledge of part of something true. But truth itself is not partial. It is simply what is. I think you're backtracking into equating knowledge with truth again (an easy thing to do). At the end of the day, knowledge is a rational assessment of what the truth is, but truth itself can not be provably grasped.

As for the sense of what you have written, I also do not think it is necessary to address your search for knowledge in such a way. I think you are overcomplicating it. While we may decide to search or not search for truth, I believe what you are implying is there are rational and necessary steps one must do to fulfill this search. I believe the word choice and examination is overly laborous for the audience you are trying to reach. If you view a second pass on your work as only stating what is absolutely needed to convey your intent, it will clean up nicely.

I think in the end you are trying to convey that epistemology is the study and examination of those necessary steps that occur when a person searches for knowledge. Again, I could misunderstand this.

Even if you are not trying to appeal to the layman at first, I still think it just needs a cleanup pass.

According to all the science, we just die Jack. Reincarnation has never been shown to have any credibility. Psychedelic's merely alter your physical brain to encounter reality a particular way. But its all physical. Even the "Light at the end of the tunnel stories" have found that the patient did not actually die.

And that's the way you should live your life. When you're dead, you're done. Why waste time thinking that it will be something else?

Good morning TVCL! My apologies, but with holidays I've been out of town. I thought I would post this real quick, but I should be back next week. Cheers!

Hello again TVCL!

Also note: "true belief" = knowledge
This follows from the argument because knowledge = "belief that accords with reality" — TVCL

I would be careful here. There is a whole libraries worth of devotion in epistemology to destroying the phrase, "true belief". Also, it is not that our belief accords with reality, it is that our belief is not contradicted by reality upon application. This does not mean our belief is true, only that it is reasonable within the current consistent constructs of our beliefs, and that particular application. It still may be the fact that our application did not consider factors we are unaware of.

Here's a quick example. Imagine you spy a sheep in a field. You walk past it, pet its wool, and move on. Unknown to you however, people have created a mechanical sheep that is very convincing except for a visible switch underneath its belly. Now, you don't know about the switch, so you don't even think to look for it. It is entirely reasonable for you to say, "I knew that thing as a sheep." But it doesn't mean it is a true sheep.

Thus, there must be a different argument as to why we should follow rational beliefs, (knowledge) versus unexamined beliefs. I believe a rational belief should be followed, as a rational belief leads to a necessary conclusion from what you are aware of. A belief which is not rational, but inductive, leads to a conclusion that is not necessary from what you are aware of. In terms of odds, it would seem rationality would win in your likelihood of being correct.

This can be shown with some quick math. X is knowledge, and Y is an unexamined belief. Z, will be the underlying reality.

X is one claim to reality. If Z does not contradict X, there is no alternative to X. But if Z does not contradict Y, there are still alternatives to Y. In the case that both X and Y are contradicted by reality, neither has an advantage. But X will always have the advantage if Z does not contradict X and Y.

Was probably your best insight in your last set of comments and makes me think that you might be coming to understand my philosophy better than I do. — TVCL

Why thank you! What a compliment! =D

To your second excerpt, it seems too wordy to get to your point. If I recall, you wanted this epistemology to reach the lay person in a clear, manageable and easily understood format. I think your theory can do this. I would try to translate everything you're trying to state into as concise a format as possible. The lay person will want the meat of the idea straight to them. You can add the details as you then dive into the specifics of the argument, and sum up more in this fashion after the reader has read the crux of your argument. Of course, this is just an opinion. Another reader may have different feedback for you on this type of criticism, so I would show it to others besides myself before changing it.

Understood! I've been making sure I have plenty of time in my replies as well, as the questions at this point take more time to work through. Fantastic work as always!

Another weekend arrives! Lets continue.

But a decision that "contradicts reality" simply cannot be made. — TVCL

In the sense that one decides to do something, yes, a contradiction to reality cannot be made. That does not stop us from believing we can. Now in the case of one's first formation of knowledge, you just have to take a stab in the dark. But once you know a few things, you can build upon it. If I know addition I can then develop and know a method called multiplication, which is adding the same thing many times. If I know Geometry, I can know what angles and lengths of planks I'll need to construct a house.

"If you want to be a mafia boss you cannot be an honest man at the same time." — TVCL

If you are seeking knowledge, you will realize this. But maybe the guy isn't. Maybe he wants to commit crime, but then say, "But I'm honest otherwise". Sure, he's not, but he doesn't care about knowledge in this case. Because he does not care about knowledge, he does not see the contradiction. If you are not using knowledge, then you can believe in things that are contradicted by reality. People still believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. If they were looking for knowledge, they would see their belief is contradicted by reality. But they're not looking for that. They are dismissing all contradictions, and looking for that one conclusive affirmation that they hope to discover some day.

And that leads to the big question again, "What goals should a person pursue in life?" That sounds like an entirely different topic from knowledge.
— Philosophim

Not if the question is "How do I know what goals a person should pursue?" ... — TVCL

Heh, true. I should clarify what I mean. We can use the application of knowledge to help us find the answer, but the process of knowledge itself, does not give us the answer. So it is not that we don't use the process of knowledge to find the answer, its just the definition of knowledge is not the whole story.

The model does not equate goals with beliefs. Instead, it recognises that goals contain implicit beliefs. — TVCL

I want to mention these are all good points you have made, and are giving me pause before I reply. Perhaps the tie in is the pursuit of a goal, versus the identification of a goal. This is where the language gets a little funny. A belief that a goal can be obtained can be based on knowledge, but it can also be just an inductive guess. If one recognizes the uncertainty in reaching the goal, one both believes there is a chance of success, and a chance of failure.

For example, I buy a lottery ticket with the belief I might win, but I believe I might also lose. Now if I do the math, I can know that my chance of winning is ridiculously small, and my chance of losing is ridiculously large. In the first case where I did not examine the math, I might believe really strongly that I will win, even if its unlikely I will win. In the second case, I can safely make the statistical decision to not buy the lottery ticket, because I know I will likely waste my money. Essentially the weight of my belief that I will lose is tipped to be greater than the weight that I will win.

In this case the knowledge of the likely outcome, combined with the cost and time investment in buying the ticket, have persuaded me not to buy a lottery ticket. Sure, I might have won, but I will take the safe odds that I will lose.

Pursuing goals is often an act of induction. Meaning we often do not know the outcome until we try. Perhaps you can take your set of knowledge and apply it to inductions to see which inductions are more reasonable than others? I leave you with that to think on.

This is all in how you see morality. The emotion of suffering is not what morality is about to myself. It is about the capabilities and existence of the world for today and tomorrow. Sure, you might both forget the incident, but the stranger isn't going to heal from that anytime soon, and might even have their hands and feet crippled for life.

Considering its just a scream you have to listen to that you will soon forget, and there will be no long lasting damage to yourself, I view it as unquestionable that I would take the torture instead of the stranger.

Let me say it, then: we don't know for a fact that consciousness comes only from the brain. It could emerge from the entire nervous system, or even from the entire body. — Olivier5

Actually, that is within acceptable science. The nervous system can be seen as an extension of the brain. Losing an arm means the consciousness of having an arm is altered. I did not say consciousness only comes from the brain. But to deny consciousness comes from the brain at all? That's clearly wrong.

All of this can be summed up as, "Some people feel we need a new model to talk about consciousness," which I have said several times I do not object to. But NO one is saying that consciousness does not come from the brain.

That's the only real issue we have. I think you've misinterpreted the idea that a different model alters reality, or that needing a new model overrides what we already know. It does not.

Maybe so, but matter and energy are physical concepts created to explain a wide range of phenomena. It's possible that these concepts are lacking when it comes to consciousness, because they are abstracted categories based on careful investigation of what our senses tell us about the world. — Marchesk

Certainly. This can be said about anything, not just consciousness. Alone, that is not an argument to deny what is known today. To deny what one knows today, they must propose evidence that incontrovertibly contradicts a knowledge claim. Again, I have nothing about saying, "Maybe its something else" about anything. But when a person says, "It IS something else" without evidence, its not a rational discussion.

But first off, stop it with the "conscious is entity" strawman. — javra

You may misunderstand. I don't believe consciousness is an independent entity with its own substance separate from matter and energy. Wayfarer does. He believes consciousness is independent from the brain. For yourself, you seem to think a bit differently, and I am much more inclined to agree with your approach.

I have nothing against panpsychism as a theory, as long as it reduces down to reality. I don't think we have enough information to confirm or deny panpsychism. First, there's quantum entanglement. Second, there is the reality that we are physical beings composed of the matter around us. It may very well be our concept of "intelligence" is simply one degree higher of a low expression of matter all around us.

We do not, cannot, observe our own identity as a conscious being. Consciousness is that which observes; and is never that which can be directly observed. If you disagree with this, what then does your consciousness look like, sound like, or smell like, etc., to you? — javra

I do disagree with this. I know what my own consciousness is from my self-subjective view point. The problem is you seem to be describing consciousness in terms of senses. Consciousness is not light hitting my eyes or soundwaves hitting my ears. That's why its a hard problem. It likely requires its own language to communicate exactly what it is. Which is perfectly fine. As long as the models are in line with reality, postulating and inventing new models to describe consciousness is perfectly fine.

OK, but a photon is more basic than an electron, and a photon has no mass last I've heard, thereby not being matter, thereby not being an entity. — javra

You might misunderstand this. Energy and mass are interchangeable mathmatically. The reason why we say light has no mass is due to the mathmatical conclusion that light travels at the maximum speed allowed. https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/#:~:text=Since%20photons%20(particles%20of%20light,their%20energy%20from%20their%20momentum.&text=If%20a%20particle%20has%20no,mass%20is%20nothing%20at%20all.

Energy, mass, and waves are all identifiers that allow certain mathamatical states to exist. These mathamatical states have been proven to be sound, so we continue to use them. The models of energy, mass, and waves are simply ways of expressing this math in a way relatable to our common understanding of reality around us. At extremes, these models break down in relatability. The key is that the math underlying it is solid. Now could we come up with a better model that relates the math to us? Quite possibly. The requirement however is that it must be mathamatically sound when applied to reality as well. This is the attempt by unified field theories.

Now, when addressing "awareness" just as abstractly as when we address "physical energy/matter", then, and only then, the primacy of awareness comes into play - this, again, as far as the stance I currently uphold goes. But this existential generality of primacy should by not means be mistaken for a consciousness that is causally untethered from its respective central nervous system's workings. — javra

Yes, I understand what you mean now, and have no disagreement with this.

The model that I've presented appears to have a direct connection to ethics because a concern for what we are tying to do in the world or for what decisions we are trying to make is woven directly into the logic of the model. — TVCL

I think a short and loose definition of ethics could help here. Ethics in general is the question of, "What actions should I do" for the best outcome. If we have concluded that the knowledge is the best means of making decisions that do not contradict with reality, seeking knowledge when pursuing one's goals seems like a better choice then not. So in one sense, we can say that seeking knowledge is the most ethical manner of pursuing one's goals. I might be reaching here, but its what I've got. =)

Use of the model or the process of searching for knowledge reveals which sets of goals can be pursued and which cannot. — TVCL

Here again, and I think you're in agreement on this, the knowledge we discover can't (yet) reveal to us which goals we should pursue. It only reveals which beliefs and results we can or cannot use in pursuing our goal. Perhaps knowledge can reveal when a goal should not be pursued anymore. But when I think of the Thomas Edison example, I find it hard to conclude if there is anything in the knowledge gained that can give a concrete solution.

And perhaps this is because a goal is not a belief. It is a motivation. We can examine why a person would be motivated to obtain a goal, and conclude that there is a certain amount of effort a person is willing to put forward to obtain that goal. Once the effort exceeds what the person is willing to put into the search, they likely stop. The problem with this is I'm not sure that's knowledge, just an examination of why a person pursues, or does not pursue a goal. That seems like it would be different for each individual.

And that leads to the big question again, "What goals should a person pursue in life?" That sounds like an entirely different topic from knowledge. Perhaps you can marry the two together, but like you mentioned, it seems this is as far as the model will take us. And that's not anything to be disappointed by either! I think you still have a fantastic model of knowledge that can be explained and used by the layman! Perhaps you'll come up with a new model of ethics. But before then, did you have other places you wanted to take the model? Again, the conversation has been great, so lead it wherever you wish.

I think the root appeal of fascism is "authoritarianism". When you start to feel that people's political beliefs are dangerous or taking away your personal power, there is an inclination to want to dominate the other people and not let them have a say.

Fascism is just one way to sell authoritarianism. If the current government asks certain people to be too selfless for their tastes, or media can convince a block of the state to be more selfish, fascism is a nice sell.

Positing the existence of something, and not finding it in reality are two different things. For example, there is no evidence that aliens exist. — RogueAI

Right, there is no evidence that aliens exist. So we cannot rationally discuss aliens as if they do exist.
This is different from saying, "Maybe aliens exist," and then looking for evidence that they exist. The people I've been chatting with aren't saying, "It could be that all of physics is wrong and consciousness could exist as something separate from the brain,". I would have no disagreement with that. Having an idea of what could be and looking for it are great. We would never advance our understanding of the world otherwise.

The posters that I have been discussing with are claiming that consciousness IS separate from the brain. Not a maybe, but that it just can't be from the brain. I have asked for evidence that would show this to be true, and none has been provided but speculation. Asserting the existence of one thing, and the refutation of another thing without any evidence that can be shown in the real world is a fantasy world framework.

If, however, you agree that we know consciousness is real, then we at minimum can claim to have discovered three things being real: matter, energy, and the consciousness via which these are known. — javra

I do agree that consciousness is real, but consciousness is a word that represents an identity we observe, but does not assert it is its own composed entity. We don't say, "matter, energy, and water" exist right? Water is made up of matter and energy. Consciousness is made up of matter and energy. Consciousness is not another form of existence separate from matter and energy. If someone claims this to be, they must provide evidence to counter the evidence that shows consciousness comes from the brain, which is made out of matter and energy.

Excuse the limitations of the English language via which this is expressed, but not everything will be a thing, i.e. an entity. Processes are for example known to occur, and a process - though being something - is not a thing/entity. — javra

Processes are actions, and interactions with other entities. When an electron travels across a wire, we get the process of electricity. When that electron travels to your computer, and allows a signal to alter a logic gate, that is the process of computing. Processes are not separate from the matter and energy, they are the result of their interactions. These interchanges are matter and energy.

'

As of yet, no. And they may never be able to.
— Philosophim

Is this not the hard problem in a nutshell? — javra

Yes. The hard problem states it is difficult with our current models to evaluate what it is like to "feel" red. It is not stating that consciousness is not physical, nor that consciousness cannot be evaluated in terms of the physical. The easy problem notes that tieing the laws of nature to brain states is not the issue. But will science ever be able to produce the state of being a bat, and then have us feel exactly what it is like to be a bat? Maybe not. That is not relevant to stating that consciousness is separate from the brain.

You can propose that consciousness is some magical entity
— Philosophim

That's not what I proposed, but it's not surprising that it is how you read it. You show no sign of having actually grasped the argument that I proposed, so I'll give up. — Wayfarer

No, I grasp your arguments well enough. You do not see the consequences of your argument. If you cannot show what consciousness is in reality, yet you declare t is something separate from the brain, then you are necessarily proposing a magical entity. You are saying consciousness exists as something, but you have no evidence or explanation for what that something is. That's a magical entity.

But we can't talk realistically, and rationally, about things which we have no knowledge of being real.
— Philosophim

There's a lot written about dark matter. — Wayfarer

Dark matter is not a descriptor of known entities. It is a placeholder that describes logical conclusions within observed limitations. Here is a good read.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

"If scientists can't see dark matter, how do they know it exists?

Scientists calculate the mass of large objects in space by studying their motion. Astronomers examining spiral galaxies in the 1970s expected to see material in the center moving faster than on the outer edges. Instead, they found the stars in both locations traveled at the same velocity, indicating the galaxies contained more mass than could be seen. Studies of the gas within elliptical galaxies also indicated a need for more mass than found in visible objects. Clusters of galaxies would fly apart if the only mass they contained were visible to conventional astronomical measurements.

Albert Einstein showed that massive objects in the universe bend and distort light, allowing them to be used as lenses. By studying how light is distorted by galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to create a map of dark matter in the universe.

All of these methods provide a strong indication that most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen."

What we can rationally discuss about dark matter is based on the data we have. While speculation also happens, as to what Dark Matter could be, it does not assert that the speculation is true, or that the existence of such speculation asserts that the regular physical laws of the universe or necessarily invalid.

I have shown several examples of the brain being the source of consciousness. For a proposition that consciousness is separate from the brain, it needs some evidence that it IS separate from the brain. Saying, "It might be," without any evidence as to how or why is nothing we can rationalize about.