Solipsism?

That's what they call it.

But I don't really believe that, I just can't prove otherwise.

And that's exactly the problem with the debate you want to have Jeanniebean. There are no facts. It's all rhetoric and hypothesis. The discussion can't be resolved. And that's why (IMHO) it doesn't belong in the science and philosophy forum. The topic would be better served in the strange phenomenon forum where facts aren't needed.

I am not sure if I understand exactly what you are talking about.

My statement is:

There is no scientific evidence for consciousness.

If you disagree, and can prove otherwise, then feel free to scientifically do that.

If consciousness is a "strange phenomenon then do you believe that consciousness does not exist?

How do I know that you are conscious?

I cannot prove you are conscious and you cannot prove to me that you are conscious.

But I am certain that I am conscious.

Therefore you are hinting to me that Solipsism could in fact be the case.

Therefore you can't prove that you exist or that you are actually conscious.

You then, must be a figment of my imagination.

As for your opinion that this subject does not belong in the science and philosophy forum, and should be in the "strange phenomenon forum" that is your subjective opinion.

You cannot prove that consciousness does not exist or that it does exist, so how would you have a clue what kind of forum the subject should be in?

so,what would you consider "Scientific Evidence"?
Or,what do you call "Scientific"?

I already answered that question.

But it would have to be object evidence since science is all about objectivity.

It would have to be accepted by the scientific community, and peer reviewed.

They would have to be able to prove consciousness exists,(or does not exist) and (if it exists) describe what it is, how it works and how to measure it where ever it is found.

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence for or against the existence of consciousness.

Anyone?

Actually it is you who insists your version of reality is correct despite any evidence to the contrary. You will balk at science that actually works, and prefer the nonsense of those who have done nothing but make money off of the credulity of others.


Searle is an fool who more often than not confuses himself more than he offers anything of value to the field.

Mckinley is higher than Everest is both epistemically objective as well as ontologically objective . . . just like every other epistmemically objective phenomena . . .

Being ontologically objective is what makes knowledge possible . . . so he basically said nothing of value here at all, just offered this up to confuse the philosophically illiterate.

Also implications must follow directly. He says "and therefore implies that conscious states are illusory"

Why? What exactly is illusory, and what about the way the function of consciousness occurs makes it so? He cannot and will not answer this question because it makes nonsense of his comment and really all of his objections to compatibilism and scientific explanations for consciousness.

First page. However really you wouldn't know a scientific methodology if it hit you in the face.

First page of what?

In your own words, tell me or show me how you understand the scientific evidence (for or against) the existence or proof of consciousness.




p.s. please don't be so rude. I understand scientific methodology.

I already gave you the book. It's all in there.

This is exactly right. The question you might ask is this,

"Is what we see and experience the true reality or is it reality just because it appears to be, and we deem it to be?



It doesn't confuse me. Does it confuse you?



That is as difficult a question as trying to prove someone is really conscious vs. someone who just claims to be conscious. (like a robot, a character in a dream, a zombie, a sleep walker, someone under hypnosis, etc.) Are they truly "conscious?" How can you tell? ( They certainly appear to be.)--->(appearances) Can you prove they are?




What was the question again?

Oh yeh.--->> What exactly is illusory and what about the way the function of consciousness occurs makes it so? <<--

It is "illusory" because, (save for our collective agreements) we don't really know for sure if what we perceive of this "reality" is true (is real) or not.

We agree on what we think is reality and it is the appearance of reality, and we call it real. (But is it?)

Searle points out: "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality."

What is means, I believe, is that this is reality because we say it is and we agree it is. This is our reality because it appears to be real.



What Searle is saying, I believe, is that this "illusion" that we experience as reality just appears to be real, and we call it real, therefore, it is our reality. It is the reality.

(Without consciousness, it would not exist.)

So it boils down to the need for an observer (consciousness) for the existence of anything.

If you would read my posts, you would know that I have responded to that non-answer.

That book should be called : "Consciousness Ignored or Consciousness Explained Away"

It does not prove consciousness exists. Sorry, it is not enough. It ignores the question.

Searle points out: "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality."

Q: So what is the reality?

A: ..the existence of the appearance. in other words: (the perception of reality is the reality.

(Perception cannot be accomplished without consciousness.)

So how about this for proof of consciousness:

---> Reality is proof of consciousness.

What reality is, whether consciousness really exists, is a philosophical question that has been around since there have been philosophers. It is, of course, unanswerable. The wiser philosophers have always ended up saying, "So what's the point?"

Of course there's no scientific proof of consciousness. It would be all over the papers if there were. But so what? Why do we need one?

Oh wait, maybe I get it. The subtext is that science can't explain everything (yet). Is that it? If so, I agree. Still, so what? Are you saying this town ain't big enough for both of us, sister?

¨http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/consciousness.html

Here,chew on this some!

Bravo Bravalady! That is the most intelligent response I've seen!

Consciousness is the great mystery of the universe and anyone who thinks that "science" or Dan Dennett has it figured out needs to think again.

And that you say it is a "philosophical question" speaks to the question about what forum it should be discussed in. THIS ONE is certainly about philosophy and science!

Yes, the "subtext" does speak to the statement/realization that science can't explain everything. Will they ever? Unless they find the link between the objective world and the mind/consciousness world, they probably won't.

Finding Evidence for or against the existence of consciousness is the same as trying to find evidence for or against the existence of that mystery people call "god."

And yet these two ideas/perceptions/worlds are intimately connected just like matter, time and space.

Great link Conrad!

actually there is no scientific Evidence for anything!
It's all a Conspiracy!