Consciousness; a radically new theory. Diaphonous? (Introduction)

by romansh , Sunday, July 12, 2015, 17:29 (3421 days ago) @ dhw
edited by romansh, Sunday, July 12, 2015, 18:01

For Romansh: Bearing in mind that all our bodily materials are ephemeral, for consciousness NOT to be “ephemeral”, it would actually have to be immaterial. -David was right ... ephemeral was not really the right word (it did not have the meaning I thought it had). Perhaps diaphanous was the word I was reaching for. But there is an ephemeral quality to our consciousness. It goes to sleep every night and if we examine our consciousness in waking moments we find our conscious is not actually seamless as David claims.-David no doubt would then argue it is our material brain chemistry that is not seamless. Thus reducing David's position to an unfalsifiable speculation. Ultimately to try find evidence for David's position we would have to show that our brains don't comport with the first law of thermodynamics. -Incidentally ... here are the synonyms for immaterial.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/immaterial
What would be a good synonym?-> Also for Romansh: in my post of Wednesday 8 July at 20:47 I answered all your questions and challenged many of your assumptions. Perhaps you have decided to break off the exchanges rather than answer my own questions and defend your assumptions, but perhaps you didn't see the post.-I quickly reviewed your post. I felt I adequately answered most of those questions within the post itself and perhaps in subsequent posts.-I would prefer this discussion to not devolve into how strongly I put forward any position. Ultimately I am agnostic, but to tread actually on the dried out grass in my garden (back yard), I have to believe it is there.-The way I see it, this discussion is like ... I have a garden shed at the top of my garden, but I don't think I need faeries under it to make it complete.-> For people who have already prejudged the issue, of whom Romansh is clearly one-And dhw ... are you the sole arbiter on who prejudges? I presume you mean before we have sufficient evidence? Just because you don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion does not mean others don't. This comment I found very gnostic of you. An agnostic might ask for more evidence and perhaps point out logical inconsistencies in an argument.-Just ignoring the god aspect to my doodle here ... where do you fall in the bubbles?
http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/beliefbubbles_files/beliefbubbles.jpg