Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

From the thread, More on Iacchus' Ignorance ...

The true mystery is in how we know anything at all ... which, is just as intangible as any of these other mysteries. Unless of course you understand that the truth is evidenced within. In which case we may very well have discovered the key to all the others. Thus far Science hasn't been able to come up with anything conclusive about how we know (the nature of consciousness), except for Dennett's notion of the virtual captain, suggesting that we're all just illusions unto ourselves. Of course there goes any notion of free will, because there's no true entity or, transcendent quality (soul) which rises above that which can be deemed strictly mechanical.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

It simply means you don't know everything about me. However, I display the characteristics of a sentient being (at least, I'd like to think I do). But of course, my forum persona is not exactly like me. For one thing, my real name is not "Goozleberry".

You seem rather devoted to this "illusion" thing, Iacchy. I have answered once, but I will again, since you didn't seem to read what I wrote earlier.

We don't know for sure that we are not illusions. But if we are illusions, then life has no meaning or truth. Since we cannot tell the difference between reality and the mere illusion of reality, then why even bother with the illusion possibility? It adds nothing to your life, and could only lead to despair, since it would mean you have no free will. I refuse to live like that.

And I'd also like to think that when I pass away, some people will remember me. Maybe some of my good memes will survive. Maybe some of my poetry.
That is exactly what I am saying. If you truly believed that all this was an illusion, then you would behave as if you thought it were an illusion, meaning you might not give other "illusions" the time of day or communicate or anything. Your life would be worthless. The evidence that you do not behave this way indicates to me that you do not really buy into this "illusion" thing.
Like I say, living your life as if it were an illusion would mean that nothing had any consequence to you, since you don't exist. That would include God.

Yeah, it's a "heavy" thing to ponder, but ultimately circular. It was the sort of thing we used to contemplate back when I used to smoke pot. I have to smile when I think of how foolish I was then.

Have you read Dennett? Or are you basing your view of what science does or does not know about consciousness on Pratt's paper? Do you really believe that this is the only meaningful attempt by science to explain consciousness? (hint: it's not)

I took a minute or two to plug in "consciousness" in the psychinfo database...21000 hits...so I pruned it down by limiting "consciousness" to a keyword. Just over 5000 hits. Just a handful of abstracts here...and all of these from 2004; it looked like well over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles just this year that touch on consciousness.

Of course, you could make the argument that this demonstrated what you said, that there is nothing conclusive. Given the nature of truth in science, conclusive is not something you will ever find there. What this database shows, though, is that there is a wealth of information solid enough to build on and explore from. We do know quite a bit about consciousness. Of course, we will never state it as being "conclusive", whereas there is nothing stopping, say, Pratt from claiming his view is conclusive (not that he does or does not--for illustration purposes only)--"conclusive" is a convenient strawman.
ororand you might like this one particularly;
I do not present these particular abstracts for any particular reason. I am not arguing based on what they say. I merely wish to demonstrate that there is more to "what science knows about consciousness" that what Pratt will tell you.

No, I have not read Dennett, albeit his name is brought up often enough, nor am I basing this upon Pratt's paper. In fact I posted the original post at the Internet Infidels Forums (the same title) seven months ago. So basically these are my own conclusions regarding the prospects of materialism. In fact I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn. While Dennett's notion about the virtual captain and Pratt's paper only confirm this.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Really? ...

Yes, but we can't help but be illusions to ourselves if, in fact materialism is all there is.

Yes, but like you say, what should sentiment have to do with anything? In fact what would be the point of despair?

Of course I don't, and I'm not abouts to have folks like Dennett, and all the rest of the life has no meaning crowd (besides what we make of it of course which, is another fiction), push this upon me either.

So, we're supposed to delude ourselves about this apparent delusion then? ... being figments to our own imagination?

That's right, the notion of materialism is entirely circular, because it doesn't go anywhere. So here we are trying to live our lives and behave as if it were full of meaning (doesn't that sound just the least bit contrived?) until bam! we smack into the brickwall of non-existence. Which in effect says, "You have no beginning and you have no end, so why pretend like you were ever here?" Seems like kind of a waste if you ask me.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Of course if you think about it, this is the very same notion we use to describe the Creator ... He who is without beginning and without end, and yet lives, because there's no such thing as non-existence!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

If, as you admit, you have not read Dennett, aren't you a little uncomfortable putting words in his mouth?

Your view of materialism is certainly a common one...but not among materialists. It is a strawman and a stereotype, easily dismissed, so that the effort of really understanding is not needed.

Except for the fact that you seem to neglect that I have an alternative view. Otherwise, why should I even give a carp about what Dennett or anyone else has to say?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Then why bother to mention him at all? You have not read him, you don't know whether he agrees with you or not. Your "alternative view" is not an alternative to his, because you don't know his!

"Otherwise, why should I [care]?" implies that you do care. Unless this was a mistake in syntax, it seems to me that you are saying that you reject Dennett. OK...on what basis, if you have not read him? You say it is not just Pratt's article--good, because that article is easily seen as a biased hack job. But again, how is it you reject Dennett without knowing what he says?

Why bother to mention someone who is of the opposition is what you're asking me? Yes, I know of him, I have heard his ideas discussed by others, some very materialistic folks by the way and yes, that does mean I've had exposure to him.

Because I am not a materialist and I can spot a materialistic viewpoint a mile away ... And yes, most of what I read in Pratt's article did strike a chord with me.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I disagree. There is great value in primary sources. As an example, what people say about Freud is vastly different (and oversimplified) from what he actually said. Jung's Collective Unconscious is constantly misused by new-age theorists. I find a huge difference between your interpretations of Swedenborg and what I would glean from the same passages. With F & J, I know enough to know a misinterpretation. With Swedenborg, I am quite ignorant but learning. If I were to make a claim about what Swedenborg said, I would first have to read quite a bit more of his writing. I would not dare to use your interpretations without examining several other experts and the original text as well. Frankly, I have not been impressed with your interpretations of materialism's perspective. If Pratt struck a chord, I think it was off-key. Pratt simply does not accurately describe materialism; you can believe he does all you wish...it won't make it so.

From the JREF Forums thread, How Do We Know? ...

And yet it speaks about the very nature of reality, that it is in fact an internal experience. Even when we verify the empirical facts, it still needs to be interpreted internally, by someone which is self-aware.

The thing is you can reason about things in your own mind, and determine their truth, without having to refer to anything external ... that is, to the degree that you develop the ability to conceptualize and understand how things work.

"The kingdom of God is within us." Yes, this is the Truth of all truths. Where else would we expect to find it, but in our relationship with truth?

The truth is evidenced within.

Yes, this is the "rational" approach, whether it goes by the label of materialism or not. And yes, I would be inclined to say that it is materialism, at least to the point of understanding our relationship with the truth, which I'm saying is metaphysical. And yes, that implies a higher reality or, spiritual plane, which is ascertainable from within. What do you think the Age of Reason implies, if not something similar? ... by which the whole world was transformed via an outcropping of truth. In fact that's it, reason is a higher faculty of mind, by which we are allowed to ascertain the truth.

By the way, do you think you can spell Iacchus with an "I" instead of an "L"? Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I am very confused as to why you posted that here. Is it intended as a response to something in this thread? I do not see it as that, so if you could explain that would help. Otherwise, it is a post out of context from somebody on the internet who may or may not be knowledgeable, and your responses to him (which at least show that you are consistent...).

Well, I probably should have included what you were saying in the preceding post ...

So in effect what I'm saying is materialism itself, through the means of empirical study, is very rational, as far as it goes that is ... which, as I've tried to stress before, is really the only problem I have with it. And I think what this other person was saying (he's also member.php?u=30" target="_blank">a member of this forum by the way) brought home the idea that it was my approach and, helped to reiterate it. So I really have no problems with Science per se', except when it comes to understanding our relationship with the truth which, is not external.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?