“I always Lie” and theories of consciousness

[Whitney]

So, you are just saying you don't like the idea that it could all be an illusion?

Is English your first language?

[fdesilva]

So, you are just saying you don't like the idea that it could all be an illusion?

If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Is English your first language?

It is now, as I live in aus. However I have not always lived here.

[fdesilva]

I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

I am using the term feel to mean anything that comes via our senses. True there are more complex feeling, however you need to sort these simple ones first.

Why make up a new definition for feel when you can just say 'experience'?  That seems to be what you really mean.

I guess experience is ok as well.
I feel pain. I experience pain. Either is ok with me.

[Whitney]

If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Oh...so it's like god.

[pinkocommie]

I guess experience is ok as well.
I feel pain. I experience pain. Either is ok with me.

But experience doesn't make sense to me in place of the word feel in your comment -

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

The observer experiences the Observed. Yes to see = experience.

I honestly don't understand what you mean.  I keep re-reading these posts and I'm just lost.

[fdesilva]

If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Oh...so it's like god.

Most definitly yes. The only difference is that the believer says God reveals himself. Now if the computer Hypothesis also says the computer programme by desighn will reveal itself then thats cool

[fdesilva]

I guess experience is ok as well.
I feel pain. I experience pain. Either is ok with me.

But experience doesn't make sense to me in place of the word feel in your comment -

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

The observer experiences the Observed. Yes to see = experience.

I honestly don't understand what you mean.  I keep re-reading these posts and I'm just lost.

Lets make a new start.
You are looking at a compter screen.
Now how would you describe your conscious experiance while doing this?

[pinkocommie]

Lets make a new start.
You are looking at a compter screen.
Now how would you describe your conscious experiance while doing this?

description - I am looking at a computer screen.  And?

[Whitney]

If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Oh...so it's like god.

Most definitly yes.

I was not expecting you to agree with me on that one.  I would say that the same reason there is no need to go about our lives as if we are brains in a jar is why there is no need to go about our lives as if there is a god....both are unproveable despite how we may personally feel towards each concept.

The only difference is that the believer says God reveals himself.

I don't think the conflicting claims of various people affects the above comparison philosophically.  Plus, if either were actually revealing itself then it would no longer be a hypothesis that can't be tested.  In a way revelations have already been falsified due to the contradictions between what people think god is revealing to them...if it weren't unethical we could demonstrate this by completely separating a large group of kids from society so that they know nothing about culture/religion; teach them a language then induce a NDE when they become adults and see what kind of god they describe (if any at all).

[Sophus]

Oh...so it's like god.

Most definitly yes.

I was not expecting you to agree with me on that one.  I would say that the same reason there is no need to go about our lives as if we are brains in a jar is why there is no need to go about our lives as if there is a god....both are unproveable despite how we may personally feel towards each concept.

[fdesilva]

I was not expecting you to agree with me on that one.  I would say that the same reason there is no need to go about our lives as if we are brains in a jar is why there is no need to go about our lives as if there is a god....both are unproveable despite how we may personally feel towards each concept.

From my perspective, anybody that loves will have heaven on earth.

I don't think the conflicting claims of various people affects the above comparison philosophically.  Plus, if either were actually revealing itself then it would no longer be a hypothesis that can't be tested.  In a way revelations have already been falsified due to the contradictions between what people think god is revealing to them...if it weren't unethical we could demonstrate this by completely separating a large group of kids from society so that they know nothing about culture/religion; teach them a language then induce a NDE when they become adults and see what kind of god they describe (if any at all).

The NDE experiment sounds interesting, however in the end its upto God. My take on this is as follows.
With regards to revelation this can take many forms. I guess the simplest is God Spoke to me kind of revelation.
Now obviously in some of these cases the person saying this is deliberately lying.
However there are many, where at least the person having this encounter truly believes it is true. Now from that persons perspective, they have met God, so it is deeper than a belief and as far as I am concerned, I am happy for them.
Now to the part of the story that I think is of interest to science.
It is the religious concept of God. While there are many challenging descriptions of this concept, I will take the simple description.
1. God has eternal life.
2. God can do anything.
3. God created Man and the universe out of love.
4. God choose to create all things in such a way, that the created will reflect the creative act of God.

Now it is 4 that makes all the difference to the scientist. God from 2 could have done it in a way that nobody will have a clue, instead God choose 4. It is 4 that leads to the Philosophical concept of God.

So then everything created must have this reflection of the creative act.
For me, I have found it in my study of conscioussness. How so, because my study has lead me to conclude without any degree of doubt, that the conscious experience is only possible, if there is an entity at the heart of this experience, that is outside the space-time continuum.  Obviously this hypothesis  of mine is falsifiable.

[Whitney]

You completely just made up 1 through 4; they are not constant across the board of god claims....they are terribly inconsistent with Hinduism and Buddhism.

[Sophus]

From my perspective, anybody that loves will have heaven on earth.

Do people need Jesus to love?

For me, I have found it in my study of conscioussness. How so, because my study has lead me to conclude without any degree of doubt, that the conscious experience is only possible, if there is an entity at the heart of this experience, that is outside the space-time continuum. Obviously this hypothesis of mine is falsifiable.

Consciousness is a product of the brain. The brain is not outside of the space-time continuum.

[elliebean]

:rainbow:

[fdesilva]

Consciousness is a product of the brain. The brain is not outside of the space-time continuum.

If you find the axioms I gave for consciousness at the start of this thread acceptable, then I will show why those axioms cannot arise from the brain alone. Alternatively you can have a read of my paper and tell me where I went wrong http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm