Given that you've already stated that you disagree on the definition of self-awareness with scientists who use the mirror test, it's unfair to misrepresent those of us who like to make sure definitions are agreed in advance of being disingenuous. I'd add to this that the definition of consciousness is absolutely fundamental to understanding if and how other animals are conscious. Real science is being done here, and you trivialize the issue by asserting that 'everyone is in agreement'. Perhaps among theists making the Argument from Consciousness the definition is simple, but in the real world it's more complex than that.

Anyway, this thread is being derailed so please write out the strongest version of your argument so we can take it to it's own thread. Very curious as to whether you would include things such as perception as being tied to the brain i.e. are you claiming that the mind is entirely separate from the brain, or just certain aspects of mind

Experience is not experiencing. That doesnt even make sense. Is awareness even a thing, or is it a label we have stuck on "experience arising" ( dont know how to put it better). There are experiences, yes, but no one, and no thing, is experiencing them. You assume, because experience seems continuous, that there is a continuous self that is experiencing, but experience is not continuous.

Nearly everyone understands what is meant by batman, so there is no question that he exists?

I just said about the apple.
Batman exists or doesn't depending on what criteria you use to define 'exist' and 'batman'

Whatever argument you use to dispute self, can be used to dispute ANYTHING. Just assume self exists like everyone else. Unless you want to be dead inside.

Anyway... /derail

Slanksyl appears to have a stronger argument than RLK on the same kind of thing. It is all under transcendental though. EVerything leads to pantheism dammit trust me. Any other non pantheistic based argument is flawed or has been shown flawed.

Really? Batman exists? Where, I want to meet him.

The argument that I use to dispute self, is that there is no proof of such a thing, you cant touch it, or see it, or detect it in any way. With an apple, you can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it.

Self is imaginary, batman is imaginary, apple is not.

Personal experiences of Christian's is pretty massive. Maybe won't seem like a big deal if you don't mix with a lot of religous folk. But there are crazy stories out there that are either A) True or B) BS.

Check out this link. I personally know this guy and he is a pastor in Vancouver, BC, Canada. I have a really hard time believing this is all just lies.

http://archive.org/details/FromIslam...fshinTestimony

If link doesn't work just look up on youtube "Afshin Moslem to Christianity Testimony".

Would you agree that there are different levels of consciousness? And also that individual personality is directly attributed to the definite physical processes of the brain?

What I'm basically trying to figure out is if you equate human consciousness with a soul.

Your comments are not accurate.


I did not disagree with a definition. I simply questioned whether the mirror test actually tests for the presence of that quality that is consciousness. If it does not, if an entity can pass that test without possessing consciousness then all of the conclusions drawn using that test are invalid.

Concerning the bold, I am not sure that it is. I sympathize with their challenge, but that does not mean I will accept any test that they propose.


I think the problem is very complex. Perhaps out of reach for those studying it.

I do not see how the thread is being derailed. I also think the argument has been presented quite clearly. I am not sure what more you need.

I experience only one consciousness directly, my own. I make the assumption that others possess a similar consciousness although as counter evidence there is the observation that a few percent of those surveyed answered a poll question in a way that is totally incompatible with what I experience.

Any statement about "levels of consciousness" would be a statement of a belief since I have no evidence to support one assertion or the other. I would guess that you are either conscious or you are not so if forced to choose yes or no, I would take "no". But not with confidence.

Actually all of your questions are so speculative that I hesitate to even respond.

I actually thought we were making the same argument. How did we differ?

The definition that they are using contains the properties 'being able to recognise one's reflection'. I don't think I'm being obtuse here. It's irrelevant anyway, I have your description from your other thread. Let's move on.

So as a syllogism cribbed from your first post:
P1) "The existence of human self-awareness does not have any physical tie to the properties of our bodies component particles"
C1) Therefore God

I'm sure you won't be happy with this formulation, but I can't keep asking for a well-thought out argument indefinitely. Really not trying to belittle you, just trying to get the strongest version you can come up with.

OK, if you define consciousness in terms of a reflection, then I suppose they are studying consciousness. But the question is: Does their test actually test for the property that caused you to answer "yes" in my poll? I do not see the connection. I am sure you did not think about your reflection as you considered how to vote.



I have a problem with this entire concept. I do not believe it is possible to actually establish that there is a God as a logical fact. I do not assert that statement C1 follows from P1. I think that self-awareness and its lack of connection to physical laws is thought provoking and may be evidence, but it does not lead to the kind of statement that you have proposed. That is probably why I balked at giving a statement that you desired. I simply do not believe that such a statement is possible, in either direction.

And why should there be? If there is a God, is it not possible that His purpose is served best by having us in some doubt as to his presence?

Most, if not all people, have an intuition about what consciousness means, but given that I'll be rebutting your argument from a neuroscience & philosophy of mind perspective it's extremely naive of you to claim that we all understand what is meant by the word. Here's a quick primer for you.

I think this might be our only point of agreement

Then we can reasonably dismiss this argument as an argument from personal incredulity/ignorance. Just because we don't have a full naturalistic explanation for consciousness doesn't mean that God can be crowbarred in as an explanation. Furthermore, given that everything for which we HAVE an explanation is explained as the product of fundamentally mindless arrangements or interactions of matter-energy in space-time wouldn't you have to conclude that a supernatural or non-materialistic explanation for consciousness would be a significant deviation from what we know of the modus operandi of God?

If you feel that my comment is flawed, you should point out the flaw. I am not a kid and this kind of sophomoric nonsense will just get you disregarded in the future.

Arguing to the possible is... just terrible. I've started this thread because I want to hear strong argument. I already accept that it's possible there is a god. It's possible there are unicorns. This is basic stuff. Russell's teapot. Don't pretend you aren't aware that your last sentence is weak sauce.

At this point I've pretty much given up on hearing anything that might make me regain my faith. There are no good arguments, and no evidence. God, seriously, if you are up there, I tried.

You seem to want proof. Well, there is no proof. If you are not going to believe without proof, then you are not going to believe. The last sentence makes a point, not a difficult point perhaps but one you should consider. Why do you feel there should be proof?