Atheist Realism?

[ronan]

Ronan,

Providing it is limited to what we know or can reasonably project. For example your only frame of reference for asserting that consciousness exists is your own personal experience that you can “feel”. This gives rise to the age old observation of “I think therefore I am”.

Please note here what I said earlier:
"I think therefore I am" is misleading due to the use of the pronoun "I"
"I" is indeed itself a perception, so we have to doubt it, on the other we cannot doubt consciousness as a phenomena by which perception are possible
=> consciousness exist

Beyond that we are led to suspect that you also exist in a biological entity that supports your consciousness. Alternatively we could speculate that you are an AI existing in a virtual reality being maintained by an extremely advanced technology of which we are unaware.

exactly, you cannot know if you are in a virtual reality or in a dream, so you cannot jump here first,
you have to prove but you cannot, so you have to assume without a hope for justification

Based on reasoned evidence.

Please follow me if you agree that the evidence are not strong enough to justify completely your assumption (that was my only request)

That’s the task of science and logic and most have already moved beyond your initial assumption that consciousness exists to discover the how.

It is not an assumption, consciousness has to exist, we show it by doubting everything
ok science go beyond but made an assumption which is unjustifiable.
So the idea here was to go back and see if there were other possibilities than assuming that what we see are in effect the result of an unconscious matter/brain and environment
please follow me

No. Science neither claims truth nor proofs. Its role is an attempt to explain observed phenomena through empirical testing. Science always leaves open the option that the explanation can be refined or corrected as more evidence is discovered. The practical result is a set of theories that can be significantly relied upon as a basis for future discovery.

Ok , fine so follow me because MAYBE science is completely on the wrong track

As for not knowing if we are dreaming is essentially irrelevant if that is the frame of reference in which we all exist. In which case that is our reality.

I agree but in this case, it is not studying reality (as what is behind our perception) but only the phenomenal world (which may be a dream).
That is in fact my opinion but what do you mean "all exist"?
are you talking about existence in reality or existence in the phenomenal world. If it is the latter, it is obvious. if you talk about reality then you are making an assumption.

I think you are attempting to separate consciousness from its role. That essence of feeling is consciousness. There isn’t a separate something.

Right, that's why at the end I said that there is content.
I separated them in order to show you that perceptions (interpreted as representing something in reality) can be false while consciousness itself has to be there.

I think therefore I am cannot be denied. Moving beyond that leads us to question how that ability becomes possible.

Please refer to my statement above about "I think therefore I am"

I’m not an atheist, I am a skeptic. What you call an assumption is not accurate. It is a fact. Theists have yet to justify their claims.

You are not a skeptic, at least not a perfect one because you believe in induction.
Be skeptic about your skepticism please

This is the essential role of science. It is only through evidence and testable theories that we are able to move forward, always keeping in mind that these explanations might need to change as we learn more about our existence.

Science is anyway not the study of reality but of the phenomenal world as you pointed out. so we don't even have to criticizes it.
and if science claim to be about the reality, then it is no more doubting as it believe that we are not dreaming and it also believe in the existence of an unconscious matter

No, this seems to be an assumption that consciousness is a separate entity. You are not justified in making that leap of faith.

if you realize that we have to doubt even the existence of what we believe to be our "I" then we are left with perceptions (I, dogs, bananas,...).
My idea here is that if we want to go beyonf we have to justify why there is this perceptions.

No, that assumption has no justification. You are not justified in making such giant leaps until you have demonstrated that the most likely cause of consciousness is not the brain. That we cannot yet grasp the details of exactly how consciousness becomes an emergent property of brain function gives no justification for asserting an alternative baseless speculation.

It is what I said, Cris, it is an ASSUMPTION (with no justification)
forgot the brain, here we are not yet at this stage
I agree it is speculation like the existence of an unconscious reality

No this is a false conclusion. You need first to explain why the brain cannot cause consciousness before considering fantasy alternatives.

Forgot the brain (you are maybe dreaming)!!!! don't you see the point to go back and forgetting our assumptions and starting afresh with what we only know: consciousness exist

All your assumptions here are based on inappropriate perceptions. You have the incorrect notion that there are two phenomena, consciousness and unconscious matter and that they are distinct and separate. We do not know enough yet to reach that conclusion. We already know that abstract type phenomena like thoughts, emotions, memory, cognition, are all caused by brain function. We also observe that self awareness in biological entities varies with levels of brain size and complexity. Self awareness is an essential component for consciousness. These discoveries and knowledge leads us further to explore how what we call consciousness emerges from complex physical neural networks. We have no reason yet to conclude that the abstract concept we have labelled consciousness does not arise from the physical operation of a physical brain.

You did not get it, here I said that the postulated (ASSUMPTION) unconscious matter is generating consciousness (so they are not separate, it is physical monism)
Why are you keeping using the word "brain"?
don't you realize that it is an assumption which is coming from A2)

No. This is an assumption totally devoid of justification.

I agree, his is an assumption, I said it!

The hard problem is recognized. What you cannot conclude yet is that the phenomena cannot be the result of the physical brain. We are still studying the brain and we have a long way to go.

brain is your only argument apparently (but it is at issue here)

The invalid conclusion is that the brain cannot do this and that science will never be able to show the brain causes consciousness. These are the conclusions made by the dualists such as yourself. You are then left with an even worse problem of then explaining consciousness and the best you can offer is the fantasies surrounding baseless supernatural.

I am not a dualist, why you seem to believe that ?

About the hard problem, we can discuss later, at least see that brain as the generator of consciousness is an assumption

Invalid conclusion based on false premises.

Why?

IF the hard problem is found impossible it follows that A1) and A2) are not possible !
it follows that A3) (a certain kind a least) is the only other option

while IF the hard problem is possible, it does not mean that A1) or A2) is true because t is only about possibility,
so in this case A3 is still an option but unjustifiied as A1) and A2) are

 

[ronan]

You've failed in following your idea then.

You are assuming that there is such a thing as an ontologically objective reality beyond our perceptions.

Why?

I did not say that reality could not be consciousness itself

please explain what do you mean by "ontologically objective reality"

 

[glaucon]

Why?

I did not say that reality could not be consciousness itself

please explain what do you mean by "ontologically objective reality"

The problem is one of definition.
You're assuming that there must be such a thing as 'reality' beyond that which we perceive. Basically, the idea that there must be some sort of concrete objective 'substrate' whereupon activity takes place, is nothing more than an illicit assumption.

Tread carefully.

 

[ronan]

The problem is one of definition.
You're assuming that there must be such a thing as 'reality' beyond that which we perceive. Basically, the idea that there must be some sort of concrete objective 'substrate' whereupon activity takes place, is nothing more than an illicit assumption.

Tread carefully.

it is not an assumption if this reality is consciousness itself.
Because even in doubting the reality of our perception consciousness is there.

 

[lightgigantic]

There have been suggestions here that we reference the seers and mystics as if they are a source of truth.

But remember -

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

meanwhile anyone studying physics is just itching to seriously apply themselves to normative descriptions in scripture

 

[Red X]

I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?

Then I want to challenge their belief. (EDIT: not really what I want a the end itself, in fact I want to see if it differs from my view and other theist views, challenging is still part of my job if I feel it the view inconsistent)

So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.

Cogito, ergo sum.

 

[ronan]

Cogito, ergo sum.

RedX is the "I" perceived really existing?
Can you really be sure?
or is there something "bigger" that finally perceive it as well?

 

[Red X]

RedX is the "I" perceived really existing?
Can you really be sure?
or is there something "bigger" that finally perceive it as well?

If you take a stance of absolute skepticism, or a paralleling epistemiology, I would duck all questions of the factuality of my own existence, on the terms that they are metaphysical questions. But to the extent that I can "know," or have knowledge of something, the ole' "I think, therefore I am" is sufficient, in realms of most forms of skepticism, but not absolute skepticism. Just as I "think" I'm living in the "real" world. I can't prove I am. From a stance of absolute skepticism, I could come up with many alternative possibilites, such as a Matrix situation, Evil demon interpretations, a simulation, etc... I can only "know" things to a certain extent, but I apply my realist assumptions as if they were actual knowledge, since absolute skepticism is not practical for applied living and application into the 'supposedly' real world.

 

[ronan]

If you take a stance of absolute skepticism, or a paralleling epistemiology, I would duck all questions of the factuality of my own existence, on the terms that they are metaphysical questions. But to the extent that I can "know," or have knowledge of something, the ole' "I think, therefore I am" is sufficient, in realms of most forms of skepticism, but not absolute skepticism. Just as I "think" I'm living in the "real" world. I can't prove I am. From a stance of absolute skepticism, I could come up with many alternative possibilites, such as a Matrix situation, Evil demon interpretations, a simulation, etc... I can only "know" things to a certain extent, but I apply my realist assumptions as if they were actual knowledge, since absolute skepticism is not practical for applied living and application into the 'supposedly' real world.

So you agree that with an absolute skepticism, we are left with consciousness alone.

 

[Red X]

So you agree that with an absolute skepticism, we are left with consciousness alone.

From a point of absolute skepticism, you would be left with nothing but questions, where answers will be infinitely acceptable yet infinitely insufficient. From that epistemology, absolute knowledge is absolutely impossible. That's why I'm not a fan of that level of skepticism. Sure, you can't be absolutely certain of important things, but you can't be absolutely certain of a lot of things. Like Santa Claus not being real. From an absolute skeptic point of view, proving the inexistence of Santa is impossible.

 

[ronan]

From a point of absolute skepticism, you would be left with nothing but questions, where answers will be infinitely acceptable yet infinitely insufficient. From that epistemology, absolute knowledge is absolutely impossible. That's why I'm not a fan of that level of skepticism. Sure, you can't be absolutely certain of important things, but you can't be absolutely certain of a lot of things. Like Santa Claus not being real. From an absolute skeptic point of view, proving the inexistence of Santa is impossible.

But here I am talking about the existence of consciousness

So I ask you if you agree that with an absolute skepticism, we are left with the existence of consciousness alone?

 

[Myles]

Not even that. We are left with self-doubt; until we get a toothache, that is.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

Please note here what I said earlier:
"I think therefore I am" is misleading due to the use of the pronoun "I"
"I" is indeed itself a perception, so we have to doubt it, on the other we cannot doubt consciousness as a phenomena by which perception are possible
 consciousness exist

Your only reference for consciousness is yourself, the “I” that is you. That essential human quality that makes you able to recognize that you are an individual.

Consciousness is a human ability. Humans exist as biological beings. Each human ability is dependent on its biological form.

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Beyond that we are led to suspect that you also exist in a biological entity that supports your consciousness. Alternatively we could speculate that you are an AI existing in a virtual reality being maintained by an extremely advanced technology of which we are unaware. ”

exactly, you cannot know if you are in a virtual reality or in a dream, so you cannot jump here first,
you have to prove but you cannot, so you have to assume without a hope for justification

So what is your point? The practical approach is that we cannot be certain of anything but that doesn’t prevent us proceeding within our frame of reference until we learn different.

Your issue is irrelevant to the debate since if you followed it yourself then you would have no basis on which to make any of your own assertions.

It is not an assumption, consciousness has to exist, we show it by doubting everything

This is the same repeated gibberish. This is a non sequitur. It does not follow that consciousness must exist because you doubt everything.

Ok , fine so follow me because MAYBE science is completely on the wrong track

Science is open to that possibility if new theories prove superior.

I agree but in this case, it is not studying reality (as what is behind our perception) but only the phenomenal world (which may be a dream).
That is in fact my opinion but what do you mean "all exist"?

If we are all permanently living in a dream world then that becomes our reality. For us it would be irrelevant if there was anything else.

“ Originally Posted by Cris
I think you are attempting to separate consciousness from its role. That essence of feeling is consciousness. There isn’t a separate something. ”

Right, that's why at the end I said that there is content.
I separated them in order to show you that perceptions (interpreted as representing something in reality) can be false while consciousness itself has to be there.

Your consciousness is what it means to be you. It is your consciousness (you) that perceives. If you have a point here you need to try again, what you say makes no sense as written.

You are not a skeptic, at least not a perfect one because you believe in induction.
Be skeptic about your skepticism please

Huh? Induction is not something to be believed. It is a valid branch of logical reasoning. It has a statistical basis of probability that has practical application. It is a bedrock of scientific discovery.

No, this seems to be an assumption that consciousness is a separate entity. You are not justified in making that leap of faith. ”

if you realize that we have to doubt even the existence of what we believe to be our "I" then we are left with perceptions (I, dogs, bananas,...).
My idea here is that if we want to go beyonf we have to justify why there is this perceptions.

That’s the inescapable nature of human consciousness, and part of the hard problem science is trying to understand. Your “I” and your consciousness are one and the same thing. This is the meaning of consciousness, its very definition. If you doubt your “I” then you doubt your consciousness.

Forgot the brain (you are maybe dreaming)!!!! don't you see the point to go back and forgetting our assumptions and starting afresh with what we only know: consciousness exist

Then your starting point is not the start, you might be dreaming it. You must first define consciousness and that depends on many assumptions.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

So I ask you if you agree that with an absolute skepticism, we are left with the existence of consciousness alone?

Nope, to be truly skeptical one must first question the existence of consciousness.

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

Correct.



Incorrect. An 'observer' in any branch of physics is any system capable of receiving information. It can be a piece of wood, a dog, a camera, or a block of cheese. 'Consciousness' plays no role (nor has any mention) in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

So what are they saying in that link? As you say otherwise.

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

On the other hand, might cognitive syntax reside in an external "ideal" realm analogous to Plato's world of Parmenidean forms? Plato’s ideal abstract reality is explicitly set apart from actual concrete reality, the former being an eternal world of pure form and light, and the latter consisting of a cave on whose dirty walls shift murky, contaminated shadows of the ideal world above. However, if they are both separate and in mutual correspondence, these two realities both occupy a more basic joint reality enforcing the correspondence and providing the metric of separation. If this more basic reality is then juxtaposed to another, then there must be a more basic reality still, and so on until finally we reach the most basic level of all. At this level, there will (by definition) be no separation between the abstract and concrete phases, because there will be no more basic reality to provide it or enforce a remote correspondence across it. This is the inevitable logical terminus of "Plato’s regress". But it is also the reality specified by the containment principle, the scope of whose universal quantifier is unlimited up to perceptual relevance! Since it is absurd to adopt a hypothesis whose natural logical extension is a negation of that hypothesis, we must assume that the ideal plane coincides with this one…but again, not in a way necessarily accessible to identifiable physical operations. Rather, physical reality is embedded in a more general or "abstract" ideal reality equating to the reality-syntax D(S), and the syntax D(S) is in turn embedded in physical reality by incoversion. Thus, if D(S) contains supraphysical components, they are embedded in S right along with their physical counterparts (indeed, this convention is already in restricted use in string theory and M-theory, where unseen higher dimensions get "rolled up" to sub-Planck diameter).

Reality is supposed to be a term that defines real on inclusion in the real universe. But if we have no definition of the real universe, then does it somehow interrupt our lives? It seems that if the universe were to assume an infinite size or sizelessness, all things within it would be under an illusion of space and time being real, when they are not. Cognition is representing time. Sensual information can represent space and objects.

(...)
What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large.

I do not think of a pluralistic (imaginable, conceivable) God as real, I consider God as consciousness. When the self-declaring non-algorithmic "I" in the mind unhinges the freely functioning awareness, God is revealed as a unifying reality that is consciousness of all things physical as one.

 

[Enmos]

Sensual information can represent space and objects.

Typo ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So what are they saying in that link? As you say otherwise.

They're making stuff up in the link. Their assertion about the copenhagen interpretation is 100% not true.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

Nope, to be truly skeptical one must first question the existence of consciousness.

You are funny Cris,

How can there be any doubt about consciousness when you know that for doubting, consciousness has to be present?

 

[ronan]

Cris, why do you again and again refers to biological knowledge ?
I asked you to be completely skeptic.

Your only reference for consciousness is yourself, the “I” that is you. That essential human quality that makes you able to recognize that you are an individual.

if you define "I" as what makes you different from other, then it is not consciousness itself but just one of the perception consciousness has. your individuality is indeed one perception!

so "I" as defined this way has to be doubted, only consciousness itself cannot be doubted

Consciousness is a human ability. Humans exist as biological beings. Each human ability is dependent on its biological form.

Forgot your biology (you have to doubt your knowledge if you want to understand my point)

So what is your point? The practical approach is that we cannot be certain of anything but that doesn’t prevent us proceeding within our frame of reference until we learn different.

My point is first to doubt everything and realize that we are sure of only one thing: consciousness exist.
forgot your pragmatic knowledge and you will see my point

This is the same repeated gibberish. This is a non sequitur. It does not follow that consciousness must exist because you doubt everything.

even when there is doubt, there is consciousness !!!

Science is open to that possibility if new theories prove superior.

Forgot science now and let see if we can get back to science (you will have the pleasure to argue) but first accept the complete skeptic view that the only thing we know is that consciousness exists

If we are all permanently living in a dream world then that becomes our reality. For us it would be irrelevant if there was anything else.

Fine, but then science should then stay quiet relative to reality (defined as what is behind our perceptions)

Your consciousness is what it means to be you. It is your consciousness (you) that perceives. If you have a point here you need to try again, what you say makes no sense as written.

Let's be clear if consciousness and perceptions are the same, you mean that the whole of your perception are your "I"?
But in this case how can you identify your "I".
If you can identify it, it means it is one perception among all perception.
so you never really reach this entity or process which is perceiving the whole.
This is consciousness of course, the feeling of "I" should thus be considered possibly false.

Huh? Induction is not something to be believed. It is a valid branch of logical reasoning. It has a statistical basis of probability that has practical application. It is a bedrock of scientific discovery.

It is something believed to lead to the reality behind our perceptions !!!
if not believed like that it is fine then because it means that you don't believe in science as a way to reach what is reality but only as a way to predict some outcome (pragmatic view)

That’s the inescapable nature of human consciousness, and part of the hard problem science is trying to understand. Your “I” and your consciousness are one and the same thing. This is the meaning of consciousness, its very definition. If you doubt your “I” then you doubt your consciousness.

NO!
"I" as I said above is a perception among many other such as bananas...
you give a certain importance to this "I" in a similar way that you give more importance to your family members and friends. But you could be mistaken to identify this "I" with something in reality

Then your starting point is not the start, you might be dreaming it. You must first define consciousness and that depends on many assumptions.

I don't need to define consciousness, at least now, we all know that it exists!
I can still say to keep it simple that consciousness is what makes you able to feel something

anyway, consciousness exists

let's agree with that while doubting everything else.