Your response?

[Princess Arabia]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you're able to concede to for example @Someone here defining consciousness as "everything" in one case, but also defining consciousness as "perception" in another? Generally you're able to use the word "consciousness" differently depending on the discussion you're having?

That's pretty much most words used in conversation. It's all about context.

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

. It's not about imposing a vision, it's about presenting a logical structure without cracks. If you find flaws, then I'll admit it

Does using a 7-letter word to refer to a concept instead of a 9-letter word change the underlying logical structure?

Edited yesterday at 04:29 PM by Carl-Richard

[Malkom]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well... this is just bog standard materialism.

There's no one quick deconstruction of it because it is a deep paradigm that maintains itself from all angles.

The bottom line is this guy is assuming there is a world and others. There could not be.

He has a lot of mistaken assumptions about Consciousness involving making choices, thinking, experiencing. Consciousness does not need to involve all that. Consciousness could just be a simple rock.

You and Me. Is It One???? Broooootheeer (crying emoji, hugging emoji) 

[zurew]

What a surprise that someone needs to lay down basic communication norms almost every single time when a new thread is started. 

 

Like you need to walk through fucking 95% of the actualized.org users how semantics works before you can begin to have a discussion about anything.

[MellowEd]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well... this is just bog standard materialism.

There's no one quick deconstruction of it because it is a deep paradigm that maintains itself from all angles.

The bottom line is this guy is assuming there is a world and others. There could not be.

He has a lot of mistaken assumptions about Consciousness involving making choices, thinking, experiencing. Consciousness does not need to involve all that. Consciousness could just be a simple rock.

*Throws rock at Leo's head*

Wake up. 

[Breakingthewall]

26 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Does using a 7-letter word to refer to a concept instead of a 9-letter word change the underlying logical structure?

I don't know what do you mean

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't know what do you mean

The logic of anything relies on concepts and their relationship. The labels you use to describe the concepts are completely arbitrary.

Edited yesterday at 08:04 PM by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

42 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The logic of anything relies on concepts and their relationship. The labels you use to describe the concepts are completely arbitrary.

Concepts are logical constructs that point to other logical constructs; therefore, absolute reality is not conceptualizable. However, relative reality is, since everything relative is logically relative to another state.

Thus, consciousness can be said to be a reality relative to the change of state, since without change there is no consciousness; there is only the non-space between two changes.

Existence is always relative and is always change. Existence is a verb. Changes are infinite, and the contrast between states is what we call consciousness.

Total, non-conceptualizable reality is the absence of limits. It can only be defined negatively. It's what can be opened in you, because you are that, as anything that exists. 

[Hojo]

Unfalsifiable = true. By definition.

Edited yesterday at 08:57 PM by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

What a surprise that someone needs to lay down basic communication norms almost every single time when a new thread is started. 

 

Like you need to walk through fucking 95% of the actualized.org users how semantics works before you can begin to have a discussion about anything.

One also assumes that once we have the above settled, others are open to reason... Oh no no. 

We are bogged down in being FULL of information and cannot ever consider another point 💀

@Carl-Richard is engaging in the dance 🩰 💃

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

One also assumes that once we have the above settled

Nah, it doesnt get settled, because people generally arent interested in clarification and I think a good chunk of them genuinely dont understand the difference between sense and reference and the difference between syntax and semantics - these concepts needs to be explained to them first before one can start the real convo.

Like you can explicate as much as you want with what intended meaning you use certain phrases and a good chunk of the people here won't be able to engage with that.

 

 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Thus, consciousness can be said to be a reality relative to the change of state, since without change there is no consciousness; there is only the non-space between two changes.

What if I say consciousness is all those things? How can you stop me?

[zurew]

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, zurew said:

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

That dude definitely does not understand Consciousness. Haha! 

Yes, it's crucial to use words clearly so that your contemplations do not devolve into mere word games. And words are used relativistically differently by people.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, zurew said:

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

Barf me out, gag me with a spoon.

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Malkom]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

This is sophistry, this is simply scientific-likeness, this is simply speculation.

Edited 15 hours ago by Malkom

[Jehovah increases]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

More like flapping out, complete utter gobbledygook. Flappy Bird indeed.

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, it's crucial to use words clearly so that your contemplations do not devolved into mere word games

Yeah it seems to me that you can get stuck in dead ends if you are linguistically/conceptually confused and engage in for example category errors.

 

Like imagine the zen master telling you to contemplate for 40 years the square root of red. "No no no  dude, dont chicken out,  just contemplate it a few more decades and you will figure it out"

 

"You are just not open minded to the possibility, that square root can have the property of redness".

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What if I say consciousness is all those things? How can you stop me?

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

.

First, as you said before, we need to be clear about what the term "consciousness" means to us. Let's say it means being aware, perceiving. Do you agree?

Then, this would imply that without something to be conscious of, there would be no consciousness. And furthermore, that something would have to be in constant change, because otherwise consciousness would be unaware of being conscious. Because "something" is precisely change. Without change, there is nothing. 

Then, without contrast, there is no happening ,there is timelessness, and this is equivalent to non-existence. It is the interval between one change and another, and it has no duration; it is zero. Without change, consciousness is zero, nonexistent. 

Then, if consciousness depends on change, since it is precisely the perception of change, you cannot say that change is made of consciousness, but rather that consciousness is made of change.

And to finish, If existence is change, a contrast between states, then change itself is not the fundamental reality but its inevitable consequence. The fundamental reality is what changes, not change, and this fundamental reality is beyond any definition; it is the unfathomable, the absence of limitations. It is existence, since it is in motion, and non-existence, since it does not need motion but rather motion occurs as the inevitable consequence of its boundlessness. It's the totality, that can be conscious of itself or not, without any difference 

[Nemra]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

First, as you said before, we need to be clear about what the term "consciousness" means to us. Let's say it means being aware, perceiving. Do you agree?

Then, this would imply that without something to be conscious of, there would be no consciousness.

It also implies that without being able to be conscious, that thing isn't there.

The distinction dissolves.