That is a tricky business since you are doomed if you don't believe in the correct God!Obviously, I am sure that many people in philosophy circles would scorn the process superstition. For those who pray, it is to whichever God one believes in but prayer is central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. — Jack Cummins
Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind to experience, so we cannot measure it. We cannot measure consciousness if it is used as a synonym of experience as well.I think we know consciousness is there for a similar reason. — Patterner
Sure. It is the basic assumption of physicalism that an electron, for example, doesn't experience.Consciousness isn't explained by the physical properties of the universe. — Patterner
The mind, although it is present, is a light substance, so we cannot detect it, at least at the current stage of scientific development.Something we can't detect with all our sciences is there. — Patterner
And to which God should one pray?This is so different from the idea of a personal relationship with God which is held by many religious believers. The idea of prayer only makes sense from that perspective. — Jack Cummins
We are dealing with an anomaly, so-called experience, within physicalism. I agree that we need to discard physicalism/materialism. We at least need two different substances, the so-called experiencer and the object of experience, if you want to describe the phenomenon of experience coherently.I'm suggesting we need a new version of science. All our sciences use the physical to explore the physical. — Patterner
I don't understand why they are incompatible. I can choose to always do right, given the fact that there are at least two right options available to choose from; otherwise, no decision is involved, since I have only one choice. At the same time, I can choose to do wrong. I am a free agent in the end.Freedom of indifference and freedom for excellence are incompatible theories. — Bob Ross
That is a very odd position, but granting it, then why did God create creatures with the ability to do contrary?whereas if one accepts freedom of indifference, then God is and is the only possibly perfectly unfree being because He cannot will what is bad (or, depending on the view, He may not be able to do otherwise whatsoever). — Bob Ross
You are introducing unnecessary substances.Yes, but the goal is to explain the relevant data without multiplying entities without necessity; not come up with the simplest answer. — Bob Ross
No, God can be simple and yet experience everything. He just needs to be omnipresent.A conscious being, as I understand it, has a qualitative experience—qualia--such that there is something to be them experiencing the world. In a literal sense, this would require a being with complexity: with parts to facilitate a mediated interpretation of reality. — Bob Ross
We perceive a substance when we experience something. The same applies to God, so no regress is involved.Because His experience of His experience is an experience. So if He has to experience His experiences, then He would also have to experience His experience of His experience and so on. — Bob Ross
Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too?I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee. — AmadeusD
I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug.You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto! — AmadeusD
Thinking is about working with ideas to create new ideas. Thinking, therefore, is a conscious activity. Therefore, the subconscious mind is conscious as well if it can create a new idea since it has to think.So, since the subconscious mind is not conscious (by definition) consciousness is not required for the creation of ideas? — wonderer1
I didn't shift anything, considering my first reply and second reply to you.Now you've shifted the goal post, from creating new ideas, to being conscious of new ideas. — wonderer1
That is true, given the definition of an idea as a mental event.Why think consciousness of an idea is necessary for an idea to be created? — wonderer1
Both the conscious and subconscious minds can create a new idea.Consider the experience of having an epiphany, where one becomes conscious of a new idea which developed subconsciously. — wonderer1
I am a free agent Bob, so I have freedom of indifference and freedom of excellence. Are you saying that God does not have freedom of indifference and therefore cannot sin? If yes, why did God create creatures with the ability to sin?Yes, MoK appears to be overlooking this distinction I have made and collapsing the discussion into ‘free will’. — Bob Ross
Ideas are mental events that only conscious things can perceive. Ideas, therefore, are not shared by AI. So, AI cannot create ideas.How does ChatGPT do it? — wonderer1
So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind?This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word. — AmadeusD
But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered.There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. — AmadeusD
I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating?That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood. — AmadeusD
Why?Which makes this, also, exactly wrong. — AmadeusD
Ideas are another anomaly in physicalism. How could they be created by the brain? How could we talk about them? etc.What is our brain made of? Literal ideas? That doesn't make sense. — Manuel
Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position.Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. — AmadeusD
I mean, if they are intelligent entities and can answer questions and continue conversations, etc., then why do you consider them to be unreal? There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions. I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers.I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment. — AmadeusD
My model is simpler since it requires only one substance. To be honest, I cannot comprehend your God. Is your God unconscious?The Trinity argument I gave presupposes a classical theistic sense of God, which most notably does not experience: God is not conscious in the same sense we are. He does not have subjective experience. — Bob Ross
How could he know if He is unconscious? You are unconscious when you don't experience anything.He knows Himself: He does not ‘experience’ Himself. — Bob Ross
How? I even have certain knowledge. I cannot experience all my knowledge at once, but only a small part of it at any given moment. I think that is because I am a conscious mind with a limited memory. The subconscious mind, however, has a huge memory. Therefore, I can conceive a God whose Knowledge is present to Him through experience.Also, this idea of Him knowing/experiencing His knowledge/experience leads to an infinite regression. — Bob Ross
If particles experience, then we are not dealing with physicalism.We don't know if particles have feeling or not. There is no evidence that they do, but there's no evidence that they lack it either. — Manuel
I don't know about thinking, but there are examples of NDEs that refer to experiencing certain things which is impossible, given the circumstances, including that there is no brain activity.Well, the point ought to be simple, show me an example of someone or something thinking or experiencing anything without a brain. If that can be done, then the "non-physical" proposal can be taken seriously. — Manuel
In you, an idea emerges when you read a sentence. Ideas to me are irreducible mental events.I was unable to follow that - you seem to think an idea emerges from a sentence, rather then a sentence expressing an idea. — Banno
Did the entities you encountered show any sign of intelligence? If yes, why are you discarding them as unreal? I have never used DMT, but if I had a chance, I would ask questions I don't have answers for to check whether these entities are real intelligent entities or just mere hallucinations.I am on drugs. What kind of logic is it that says you alter your consciousness in a way that reliably causes hallucination, yet you take hte entities as real?? Seems utterly bizarre to think they are real without further. — AmadeusD
How do you define mind?I've actually had one dream where i was with Graham Hancock on a vine-covered river cruiser speaking at length about the possibility that psilocybin mushrooms graduated through ancient Welsh ceremony to the Druids. Two days later, I fell asleep and hte dream picked up in the exact same place. I was able to report hte entire conversation. This simply means my mind is agile. — AmadeusD