From the JREF Forums thread, Unconsciousness ...

So, when consciousness is no longer observable, by means of its physical interaction with the world (consciousness not being physical in the first place), does that mean it's been destroyed? Or, that it's no longer observable? That's quite an assumption don't you think? So, which is it going to be?

Oh, and regarding the analogy of an impaired TV set, which no longer receives a signal, and yet the signal is still measurable (which, for all intents and purposes should be an indication right there), let's not forget there was ever a time when radio waves were not measurable ... Whereas in that respect, just because we didn't understand they existed, does that mean they had no measurable impact on the world? Why should it (our attitudes) be any different towards a God which doesn't seem to have an impact either? Meaning, why should it be so easily dismissed when there are other things to suggest it could very well be?

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

I was gonna say "same pig, new dress"...but it isn't even a new dress! Iacchus, this is the same argument you have made at least half a dozen times here, and it would appear probably as many times in other forums, and the same argument you have been spanked in every single time you start it!

Seriously, count out the number of threads where you make the "consciousness energy" argument, or use the "brain as television set" metaphor. On how many of those threads do you see people agreeing with you? On how many of them do you have explained to you, painstakingly and in great detail, how your argument fails both logically and empirically, is wholly without grounds, and should be binned immediately?

Do you even listen? Do you read the comments that people make? Your argument here is invalid, as it was every other time you made it.

Yet it is quite an assumption to assume consciousness has been destroyed when its effects are merely unobservable don't you think?

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

LOL. Lets see. Just because every aspect by which we recognize consciousness becomes no longer apparent, that doesn't mean that the consciousness is destroyed? Yes ! That makes perfect sense! Nothing is ever "destroyed". The Spanish Armada, the Berlin Wall, the Challenger space shuttle, none of them were "destroyed". They just became "unobservable". In fact, Iacchy's Dictionary does not even have an entry for "destroy" because to him, it is a meaningless verb.

No, the only thing that's destroyed, that we're aware of, is that which is affected by consciousness, not consciousness itself. Besides, all these things you speak of are physical things which, consciousness is not. Compare the difference between a smashed up TV receiver and the signal it receives. The signal is no way impaired by the TV receiver which no longer works.

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

Actually, the big assumption is that there is a causal "thing" called consciousness, the only evidence for which is its alleged "observable effects".

Did you ever read that page on circularity?

Of course you will only find evidence of the "things that are caused by consciousness" having been destroyed, Iacchus. That is because those are the only things in your pathetic metaphor which are actually measurable. Even in your own argument, consciousness itself is undetectable--only its effects are felt. So yeah...it is quite an assumption to assume that something that is only assumed in the first place could ever be destroyed. How can you destroy that which never existed in the first place?

This is bogus, whichever way you care to look at it. So, if you consciously weren't aware of the bus that is about to smack into you head on, would you (as a result of being conscious) bother to steer out of the way? Or, let's take something we all know like Donald Trump. If he wasn't conscious, would he have been able to build an entire empire based upon his business practices? And just think of how many conscious decisions were made in order to bring this about.

Non sequitur!

So now you're saying consciousness doesn't exist? That is amazing! And, just because you can't explain what it is or, how it got there, does not mean it does not exist. The fact of the matter is we are conscious, and yes, that affects everything that we do.

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

Do you ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over. You have never presented a single example of consciousness as a causal agent. The sad thing is, you don't even realize it. You think by giving more examples of your circular reasoning that it will somehow, someday be correct. It won't.
No it wasn't. Your argument was circular. It was a gentle reminder that you could find out what that means if you cared to investigate it. You don't.
You've tried this straw man a number of times too. Diggy has never said consciousness doesn't exist, but rather that it is an emergent property of the brain, not something apart from the body. If you could actually support your contentions with evidence instead of repeating the same circular gibberish, you would be hailed as a genius. You ain't.

This is what it all boils down to right here isn't it? And you can't understand why I don't agree with you or Mr. Cuttlefish? Sheesh!

Then obviously you and I have nothing to talk about.

No, the gibberish entails your supporting one faulty assumption with another. Now, if you were to get either one of these assumptions correct, then perhaps you can acknowledge the genius behind what I'm saying?

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

Thank you, Gooze. Twice. Once for saying what I would have in response to Iacchus, and once for showning what it is like to actually understand something well enough to comment on it. You do "get it". Study her post, Iacchus--that is what posts look like when somebody understands what is meant.

Exactly right on all three paragraphs, Gooze...

1) Causality is the key. Iacchus infers consciousness from effects. It is, thereby, circular to claim that the inferred "consciousness" is causal. I have, Iacchus, tried several different ways to express this to you. Now I know that Gooze understands it, so I am left wondering why you do not.

2) Gooze is again right. It is absolutely not a non-sequitur, because your argument is purely circular. So my question goes to, again, why you make your circular argument. Is it out of ignorance, not having read the page? Or do you actually know better, and still choose to make such arguments dishonestly? Again, I am left wondering...

3) LOL...I am so happy that Gooze understands this one; you have missed this point so many times I was beginning to doubt my explanation. It is you, Iacchus, and only you, who interprets my explanation as "consciousness does not exist". That which you call consciousness is completely explanable within the view of a material universe. The only thing which "does not exist" is any evidence of a mental entity of any sort (let alone one which fits the description of "consciousness"). So the thing you assume exists is the one thing that has no evidence...and as a result, you claim that I am the one who denies reality? Iacchus, your inability to understand is crippling you. Your closed-minded insistance on some mental entity for which there is no evidence but your circular ravings prevents you from understanding.

Gooze gets it. Perhaps there is hope for you, too...

Brain farts.

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

Sheesh indeed, Iacchus. Don't take it personally--it is not you, merely your arguments, which are completely worthless. Examine them, modify them, support them...oh, wait..."modify" is impossible, isn't it? That would suggest that they were not perfect as you dreamed them.

Guess what? They weren't. They are flawed, internally contradictory, circular, and contrary to observed evidence. Do yourself a favor; lose them.

Is this the new quality of your critical analysis, Iacchus? Shall I interpret this as your having given up? Do you have nothing of substance to say?

No, according to your anal-ysis, we (our identities) are nothing more than brain farts. So, if you insist on saying consciousness is not a causal agent in the reality in which we live, you're full of it! ... hot air that is!

By the way I do understand what you're saying, but you're wrong ... which, believe it or not, does make a difference.

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

(Sigh). No, you don't understand. I'll see if I can make it reeeely simple.

Conciousness is caused by the brain. Then, (according to you) consciousness turns around and causes the brain to do conscious things. Can you see the circularity here? Brains can exist without consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without brains, no matter how much you wish it were so.

The only way it could not be circular is if consciousness exists apart from the brain, taking it's orders from somewhere else. There is not a scrap of evidence that such a thing occurs. Alas.

So, your little play on words makes it quite clear what you think of subjecting our thoughts to critical inquiry. You would rather hide. OK. And yes, I insist that "consciousness" is not a causal agent....or, more correctly, I challenge you to provide the first piece of evidence (because so far there is none) that it is causal.

"Brain farts"...indeed. Would you like me to respond in kind when I speak of your ideas? If you do understand what I am saying...and I sincerely hope that you do, against all evidence...plese respond to it. Tell my why I am wrong, not simply that I am wrong. If it does make a difference, then it does make a difference! I have pleaded with you for months now to show me things that do make a difference....

I do not believe that you understand what I am saying. If you truly do, then I can only conclude that many of your posts here have been made as conscious lies. So...tell me, if you understand what I am saying...why am I wrong?

Consciousness is an entity. An entity which, coincides with the abstract reality in which it exists. It is much like the water which fills the bowl. It is not of the bowl and yet, is the containant of the bowl. If consciousness is merely a subtle form of energy, then we have yet to measure it. If consciousness is something other than a subtle form of energy, but definitely not physical, we still can't escape the fact that it involves this subtle energy, otherwise it would have no means to interact with the physical. My guess would be that it was a subtle form of energy. Or, if not, this would be the next place to look, if we wish to understand the nature of its origins.

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

So it would seem we're right back where we started from. You have no means by which to measure it, outside of its ability to articulate "living things" ... which, it most certainly does. And I have no means to speak of it, outside of my own experience ... hence the experience of "living itself." Does that make either one of us right or wrong necessarily? No.

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

Um... energy doesn't just interact with the physical, Iacchy. It is physical. If you can explain consciousness as the result of physical processes, then you need not search for some other mechanism to show how it "interacts". This is by far the simplest, most parsimoneous solution, uncluttered by unknown forms of energy, unprovable metaphyics, and undiscovered alternate realities. Yet you reject it in favor of your "magical" explanations.

But you keep looking for your "subtle form of energy". As soon as you find it (and can prove it), the Nobel Prize and worldwide fame will be yours. I'm gonna hold off on buying a new gown for the ceremonies just for now.

What does it mean?

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