Well, yes and no. Yes, the entire thing is circular, but only if we use your definition of consciousness. Gooze's definition is different from yours, not a causal entity, and not circular. Hers does not pretend to be an explanation, but merely a description. The difference is crucial. Through her description, we can determine some of the causes which are in the environment. Through your alleged explanation, we simply infer from the observed results some sort of internal cause. What sort? For you, it is consciousness--but the same evidence serves for demonic possession, psychic control, benevolent gods, or aliens. That is the danger of the circularity of your definition; you think it explains something, but it simply cannot.Why do you insist on misrepresenting Gooze's and my position? You claim that you understand it, but have never once offered a scenario remotely resembling what we intend. Not possible to know anything? With absolute certainty, no. With reasonable certainty, of course. Is consciousness the means by which we come to know anything? No; absolutely not. How can I be so certain, when I just said we cannot have absolute certainty? Simple--consciousness as you define it is circular, and cannot logically be causal. Consciousness as Gooze or I define it is not circular, but is also not a causal entity, but rather an effect. Either way, consciousness is not "the means by which we come to know", and cannot be.

I thought you said you understood what I was saying. How come you are so far off the mark?I did not say you have to assume you are conscious in order to be conscious. Not at all. I spoke of the assumptions of your argument. Again, I thought you said you understood. You, in order to logically prove that experience is dependent on consciousness, start off by assuming consciousness must cause experience! And you do this again and again, in only a small handful of variations on the theme! You keep saying that you know what I mean, but then you make a statement like this one...and demonstrate that you still have not the faintest understanding of circularity. Did you ever read those pages? It's either a yes or no proposition.

I have never once said the external environment does not affect our behavior. However, what would there be to affect, if we were not conscious? Therefore, consciousness is the portal to what we call experience.

It all sounds like an argument of determination against free will if you ask me. And yes, consciousness is the only way we can come to know things ... even when it comes to accepting the empirical findings of Science. It still requires an "experiential mind" (via consciousness) to acknowledge the evidence.

Consciousness must cause experience? Yes, consciousness is the medium which allows us to experience things ... at least to the point to where we can acknowledge it.

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

I never said you did. Your second sentence, though, presupposes that only through consciousness could there be an effect (exactly what you find, "therefore", in your third sentence, making it a circular argument. yes, again. Did you ever read those pages?) What would there be to affect? Us, that is what. The exact same thing that is affected if we are conscious. The trick is, consciousness is not a necessary condition, but an outcome. You still don't get this.No, consciousness is not the only way we can come to know things. We can demonstrate that (and good for you, yes, some of that was discussed in the free will and determinism thread). Your last sentence is completely nonsensical, given your definitions of consciousness. Why? Because it is circular, once again. Did you ever read those pages?You are quibbling with words. Consciousness as you define it is causal--that does not mean it is the sole cause of experience. But your choice of the word "allows" indicates that you (consistent with what you have posted before) consider consciousness to be a necessary condition for experience. In that way, it is (again, by your flawed circular definition) presumed to be causal...and presumed so in the absence of any evidence but the effects it is alleged to cause! This is....you know the word....circular once again. Did you ever read those pages?

Iacchus, at the very least, you should retract your claim that you understand what I am talking about. You clearly do not.

Not the portal, but it can be a portal. You experience many things of which you are not conscious. I can give you any number of examples.

You are lying in the sun without sunscreen. You become sunburned, but because it doesn't hurt yet, you don't notice it. Are you only sunburned once you become conscious of it?

Unbeknownst to you, you are living near a toxic waste dump and contract cancer from the radioactive waste buried nearby. You die from the cancer without ever knowing what caused it. Did you not "experience" the radioactivity, even though you were never conscious of it? Do you only die from cancer if you used a geiger counter on the area before you died?

You select a brand in the store for no reason you can explain. Though you don't remember it, the brand you bought has been saturating the media with advertisements. Were you affected by them, even though you were unaware of them?

You have a dream, but you don't wake up, and you remember nothing about the dream, but when you wake up, you have left a spot on the sheets. Did you not experience the dream?

So you see, Iacchy, your continued instance that consciousnes is the only portal to experience is provably and egregiously wrong.
(sigh) Did you buy another ticket to the "Pirates of Circularity" ride at Disney World? All you are saying is that you must have consciousness to be concious of evidence or empirical findings or whatever. This statement provides no insight whatsoever into the nature of the evidence or to objectively verifiable truth. In fact it provides no insight into anything whatsoever, including how you define consciousness. It is a completely worthless circular observation.
If you disagree, then show us how your statement answers any question about the nature of consciousness. I predict that you will not be able to do so.
To acknowledge something means to be conscious of it. So you are saying Consciousness is the medium which allows us to be conscious of things. Does anything about that sentence seem circular to you?

I think, therefore I am. Now be gone, the both of you! By the way gooze, whatever doesn't come to my conscious awareness is not me.

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

This will, I hope, be my only post on this forum.

Iacchus, you are a coward. You deleted the accounts of Digital Cuttlefish and Goozleberry; although it is well within your rights as the owner here to do so, you should have the common courtesy to A) announce the banning, so that others may cheer you on or express their disapproval, and B) note that you banned them even though they did not violate any of the rules of your forum. It would appear that you banned them simply because they disagreed with you, and because they did so successfully, pointing out the flaws in your arguments, the hypocracy in your accusations, and the willful ignorance which characterizes all you do.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this banning.

I wonder how long this post, and this account, will be allowed to remain.

Son of Cuttlefish

P.S. So...in the past you have abandoned threads and started new ones when you could not respond to arguments. Are you going to abandon your forum? It will get lonely here without your second and third most prolific posters...I predict you will be very peaceful here...quiet... alone with just your dreams...

SoC

To be honest, I see no point in trying to discuss things between you and goozleberry. The argument is over, and I have better things to do with my time.

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

I agree. I just thought the way you chose to do it was cowardly. Not even an announcement to let others know what had happened...

4:32 AM? That's a good number. Has something to do with the rythm of the universe ... according to Joseph Campbell that is. This was the main reason why I dropped it by the way, due to certain things that have come up recently and, my feeling the need to get back in sync. While currently the forums don't seem to be serving much purpose, neither are there many folks that witnessed what happened here. In which case I don't think it should be such a big deal one way or the other. (I dropped the bans by the way.) So it's funny that this number should pop up this way, but like I say, I'm not the one who believes in coincidences. But then again I don't expect you to accept it as any more than that, outside of my being amused by it that is ... which, is really all I do with this "numbers thing" anyway.



P.S. I included the picture because there's a three hour time difference between you and me.

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

What do you mean that the forums aren't serving much purpose? I've been having a hell of a good time.

Just zooming around over everybody's heads huh? Well, perhaps you can try zooming on over to the other forums then? By the way they're free, and won't cost me the extra $125 a year to operate them, an expense which, will be coming up in another month or so.

As a matter fact I think anyone can start up their own forums if they want, although I think one of the requirements is that you have to have your own webpage. I'm not sure that it is?

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

It's a little dark and somber over there with the black background. Do you want me to go blind? There's more ambiance over here.

Goozleberry and Digital Cuttlefish are part of that ambiance in the forums (most of it really--including yourself). I don't really contribute that much to the forums but I realize that I'm not the one arguing back and forth all the time so it must get tiresome. It would be different if more members had viewpoints more in line with your own to give you a breather from the bickering.

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Unless we're talking quality versus quantity.

Thank you for letting us back in Iacchy, though it was somewhat petulant to kick us out in the first place.

I do not see how you can make the above statement. Are you aware of your jejunum? Are you aware of your white blood cells? I'll bet there are parts of "you" that you don't even know exist. Certainly even among your more external parts, you are only aware of, at most, a few of them at a time. How can you say that the rest of them are not "you"?

You are the sum of your parts, even the ones you are not aware of.

These things can be changed, although there's one thing that I just discovered that I don't like, is that it doesn't give you the option to view the last post in the thread, in which case you have to click two or three more times just to get there. So I'm looking into some other free version(s) instead. I'll let everybody know when I get it finalized though.

This has nothing to do with you, however I am glad that you like the forums though.

Actually it has more to do with the quality of the mystical experiences I've been having as of late, suggesting that I focus more on this (and perhaps work more on my book), regardless of what anyone has to say about it. This is something that I've really gotten away from over the past five or six years, and I think maybe it's time to stop trying to explain things so much which, is kind of how it was in the beginning. That doesn't mean I won't make myself totally unaccessible to other people though.

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

Except that I can look at my finger, and know that it's a part of me, and yet it's not the same thing as "that" which is looking at it. I am also speaking more in terms of our ability to reason (for all intents and purposes) and understand the truth, when referring to consciousness.

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

No, that would be your eyes. Then your optic nerves conduct the image to your brain where it interprets the nerve messages. Yet each is a part of "you".Then you are speaking mostly of your brain, though not entirely. Sensory input has a good deal to do with your reasoning as well.

Really, Iacchy, you shouldn't spend so much time on trying to separate "mind" and "reason" from the rest of you. All the parts are interwoven in a manner which is wonderful to learn about. I wish you could feel the exhilharation of finding out verifiable, objective truths about how things work. Those kinds of truths are universal, not personal, and that makes them closer to what I call "truth".

What do you call "truth"?

Is the truth physical? Or, is it the abstract observation of what is physical? What is a mind, without the ability to reason? This in fact is all I've ever alluded to -- and yes, it does include the ability to reason about how these other processes work -- with regard to consciousness. Which isn't anything other than what you and Mr. Cuttlefish have attempted to express yourselves with respect to your own theories by the way.

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

Wrong. Gooze and Digital presented more than mere "reason about how these other processes work"; they presented falsifiable (potentially), testable explanations couched in physical processes, consistent with the observed data. You have only presented circularly reasoned unfalsifiable speculation based on your introspective accounts. It would be (and has proven here to be) impossible to test any of your notions, because no operationalization of your terms is possible, no manipulation of your allegedly causal mechanisms is possible. You say "what is a mind without the ability to reason?" but then, since we cannot independently measure "ability to reason" without having measured "mind", your question is purely hypothetical and not testable.

Please do not say that what Digital Cuttlefish and Goozleberry have attempted is nothing more than what you have done. It is an insult to them, and it shows your own ignorance; if you truly cannot see what the differences are, I pity you. If you cannot see the differences, your "vision" (and I mean the term metaphorically, speaking of all the notions in your book) needs correcting; none should trust you to lead them, as it would be the blind following the blind...