2 ms·

Think about it this way: It's an illusion, but the illusion is real. Or think about it this way: We simulate a reality (the illusion). Or how about this. We a

Think about it this way: It's an illusion, but the illusion is real. Or think about it this way: We simulate a reality (the illusion). Or how about this. We are pattern recognizing feedback loops (illusion) Do we really need to know what consciousness is as a thing or have we perhaps by now realized that question doesn't really make sense because consciousness is not a thing. It doesn't exist somewhere. It's a concept we use to describe phenomena but which through language can always only be a reduction of reality.

EGreg 9y ago
Yep, I think our ideas are shaped by our language. Same thing with the idea of "existence". It actually requires consciousness to make any sense. The two concepts are actually dual of each other! Thought experiment: if I told you about a parallel universe which you would never be able to detect, or deduce from any phenomena in this one ... how is then saying "it exists" different from saying "it doesn't exist?" Now imagine this world with no conscious observers. How is its existence any different from that of the hypothetical parallel universe? In short - our very concepts of existence and consciousness are really influenced by the language we use. Now an interesting question: can you pose ANY question about consciousness or existence that doesn't have a trivial answer, if you are CAREFUL to avoid all ambiguity in your language? I believe that, from an atheist point of view, there IS no root you can get at. Everything is relative. When you are careful to state the subject and object of a sentence everything becomes trivially obvious. The trouble is when you take a ternary relation (eg A should do B if A wants C to happen) and omit one of the terms. Then you get mystical wondering "How do we ground the moral imperative that A should do B?" Once you are careful to include all the input variables, morality and everything else becomes relative and the statements are merely relations. Then you get something like logical positivism. The main question still remains - WHY are things the way they are, so consistent? And atheists may never know! :)
- ThomPete 9y ago
  The difference between the two isn't important (there is no objective difference between saying either). The fact that someone is asking the question is what's important. And then the real question IMO becomes what are useful questions to ask, rather than what is the answer.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Can see you edited so let me add that i am also living without a religion. I agree that everything is subjective, but that doesent mean we can't build moral or ethical foundations for how we live together. There are plenty of shared foundation even if its an illusion to build upon.

EGreg 9y ago

Yep, I think our ideas are shaped by our language. Same thing with the idea of "existence". It actually requires consciousness to make any sense. The two concepts are actually dual of each other! Thought experiment: if I told you about a parallel universe which you would never be able to detect, or deduce from any phenomena in this one ... how is then saying "it exists" different from saying "it doesn't exist?" Now imagine this world with no conscious observers. How is its existence any different from that of the hypothetical parallel universe? In short - our very concepts of existence and consciousness are really influenced by the language we use. Now an interesting question: can you pose ANY question about consciousness or existence that doesn't have a trivial answer, if you are CAREFUL to avoid all ambiguity in your language? I believe that, from an atheist point of view, there IS no root you can get at. Everything is relative. When you are careful to state the subject and object of a sentence everything becomes trivially obvious. The trouble is when you take a ternary relation (eg A should do B if A wants C to happen) and omit one of the terms. Then you get mystical wondering "How do we ground the moral imperative that A should do B?" Once you are careful to include all the input variables, morality and everything else becomes relative and the statements are merely relations. Then you get something like logical positivism. The main question still remains - WHY are things the way they are, so consistent? And atheists may never know! :)

ThomPete 9y ago
The difference between the two isn't important (there is no objective difference between saying either). The fact that someone is asking the question is what's important. And then the real question IMO becomes what are useful questions to ask, rather than what is the answer.
ThomPete 9y ago
Can see you edited so let me add that i am also living without a religion. I agree that everything is subjective, but that doesent mean we can't build moral or ethical foundations for how we live together. There are plenty of shared foundation even if its an illusion to build upon.