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

by dhw, Monday, July 13, 2015, 12:21 (3420 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: 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. 
Incidentally ... here are the synonyms for immaterial.http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/immaterial
What would be a good synonym?-Good joke if you wish to trivialize the subject. Of course immaterial in this context does not mean irrelevant but incorporeal, spiritual, non-physical... Diaphanous refers to very thin, translucent materials. Just as unsuitable as ephemeral. Why do you need a synonym?-Dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: I quickly reviewed your post. I felt I adequately answered most of those questions within the post itself and perhaps in subsequent posts.-1) I wish you would acknowledge that nobody knows if - let alone how - chemicals engender consciousness, instead of constantly evading the question of how (see below). 
2) You wrote that a “whack load of evidence points me to think of consciousness as an illusion. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT REAL. Illusions are real.” I challenged this oxymoronic statement and suggested you were conflating the reality of consciousness with the possible illusion of WHAT we are conscious of. Do you agree? In your latest post to David, you repeat: “First and foremost I think consciousness is an illusion” - though without the rider that “illusions are real”. Do you agree that if you were not conscious of this discussion, you would not be able to continue it? If so, in what sense is consciousness an illusion?
3) You got in a muddle over the redness of the bus, but when you stated it was unlikely to be red, I pointed out that “red” was a word invented to describe an intersubjective experience, and asked you what access you had to the objective reality of redness.
4) I challenged your statement that “there is next to no evidence for a dualistic consciousness. There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness.” Do you agree or disagree that at least the second part of this statement is subjective and without foundation? If not, once more please give us your evidence that chemicals can engender consciousness.-Dhw: For people who have already prejudged the issue [dualism], of whom Romansh is clearly one...
ROMANSH: And dhw ... are you the sole arbiter on who prejudges? -You have left out the rest of my sentence: ..."such matters [NDEs and other psychic experiences] do not constitute evidence and are therefore not worth looking into."-ROMANSH: 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.-You stated categorically that “it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness”, which is a clear rejection of dualism. On 1 July during a discussion of NDEs - which dualists regard as important evidence - you asked David for references (which he provided and even offered to send you), but you subtly changed the subject to the impossible ADEs and googled a sceptical article rather than consider the material David recommended. If you are not prepared to consider possible evidence, I would suggest that constitutes prejudgement, but no, I am not the sole arbiter and will gladly withdraw the comment if it causes you offence. You are, however, quite right that “an agnostic might ask for more evidence”, which is why I keep asking you for evidence that chemicals generate consciousness, but you keep evading the question.
 
ROMANSH: 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.
-Nor do any of us, but such images don't help. Why not use the terms we are discussing? I believe I am conscious. I am not sure whether what I am conscious of corresponds to any objective reality. I am not sure whether my consciousness is engendered by and dependent on chemicals or has a source that is independent of known physical factors.
 
ROMANSH: 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-Since the bubbles relate specifically to God, it's difficult to ignore God! But if you want me to relate it to consciousness, the same categories apply: doesn't believe in materialism, doesn't believe in dualism, sees insufficient evidence for belief or disbelief.