Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Split-Brain - Two Consciousness

Expand Messages
  • nihilus_hedonus
    I have no idea how animal brains are structured. Maybe we should ask Jeremy and Tekton (they are more equipped to answer this question than I could ever do) if
    Message 1 of 86 , Jan 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I have no idea how animal brains are structured. Maybe we should ask
      Jeremy and Tekton (they are more equipped to answer this question than
      I could ever do) if their brains also are divided into some sort of
      right and left hemispheres, which like us, are integrated seamlessly
      by a callosal connection.

      --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "saje_jewel" <saje_jewel@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Let me ask you nihilus.
      >
      > do you think animals has a split brain too?
      >
      > Saje
      >
      >
      > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "nihilus_hedonus"
      > <randyallan@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > So you believe animals have souls?
      > >
      > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "this_isit77"
      > > <this_isit77@y...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Jeremy,
      > > >
      > > > I am definitely agree that animals have consciousness and
      > emotion.
      > > > But I do not agree that most Christian do not need to resort to
      > > > dualism. Instead, most of Christians seek aid to dualism
      > principle
      > > > to explain this phenomenon. Actually, Christians believe that
      > > > physical events are happening in the brain that can be described
      > > > completely using terms from biology, chemistry and physics.
      > However,
      > > > the features of physical events and their properties are not the
      > > > same to mental events and their properties. If those two
      > properties
      > > > are not the same, how can we perceive that biological
      > explanations
      > > > are adequate clarification of consciousness phenomena?
      > > >
      > > > I think the biological phenomena of animal and human being are
      > > > primary qualities, but we cannot set aside that there is
      > secondary
      > > > qualities (common sense experiences) that do exist. But if we
      > imply
      > > > the secondary qualities do not exist in the external world, I
      > think
      > > > we are left with a picture of matter bereft of secondary
      > qualities.
      > > > What do you think?
      > > >
      > > > Dave
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Santos
      > <vmma007@y...>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Dave,
      > > > >
      > > > > Thank you also for your interest. I think you have very good
      > > > points.
      > > > >
      > > > > Sorry, my statement needs clarification. Included in that
      > > > statement is the phrase "at this point", which is one way of
      > saying
      > > > that we still do not know everything there is to know about
      > > > consciousness and emotions.
      > > > >
      > > > > I would like to believe that there is something more than
      > just
      > > > matter and energy. As a sentient being, I also would like to
      > believe
      > > > I have a soul inhabiting this body and forming the mind. In that
      > > > way, death may not be the end of it all. But I do not share your
      > > > certainty, although I honestly would want to. I would like to
      > hear
      > > > your thoughts on this.
      > > > >
      > > > > You said that, "As far as i know this subjective state of
      > > > experience is real. Like the feeling of pain, experience of
      > sound,
      > > > awareness of color. This are different from anything that is
      > simply
      > > > physical. Now, if our world were only made of matter, so these
      > > > subjective aspects of consciousness would not exist. But they do
      > > > exist. So there must be more to the world than matter."
      > > > >
      > > > > Would you agree with me that the lower animals also have
      > these
      > > > experiences? That they have consciousness and emotions? That
      > they
      > > > have the "feeling of pain", the "experience of sound", and
      > > > the "awareness of color"? And yet, most Christians do not need
      > to
      > > > resort to dualism to explain this. Most do not resort to
      > a "ghost in
      > > > the machine" to explain animal behavior. Most would accept
      > > > biological explanations. (Eastern philosophy may have a
      > different
      > > > point of view). If biological explanations are adequate to
      > explain
      > > > the experiences of a chimpanzee, why not a human being's?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Jeremy
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > -----
      > > > >
      > > > > this_isit77 <this_isit77@y...> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Jeremy,
      > > > >
      > > > > Thank you for the references.
      > > > >
      > > > > I am not neurologist or psychiatrist but to be honest with
      > you -
      > > > I don't know if I am going to agree or not, that at this point,
      > > > consciousness, self-awareness and emotion are all seems have
      > their
      > > > roots in physical brain processes.
      > > > >
      > > > > Pls. correct me if I am wrong - this is the way I understand
      > > > your statement. The consciousness, self-awareness, and emotion
      > are
      > > > the physical events that occur in the brain. But my problem is -
      > we
      > > > cannot set aside the subjective character of experience. As far
      > as i
      > > > know this subjective state of experience is real. Like the
      > feeling
      > > > of pain, experience of sound, awareness of color. This are
      > different
      > > > from anything that is simply physical. Now, if our world were
      > only
      > > > made of matter, so these subjective aspects of consciousness
      > would
      > > > > not exist. But they do exist. So there must be more to the
      > world
      > > > than matter. How can we explain this? Again i would appreciate
      > if
      > > > you give us some points or concern. thanks
      > > > >
      > > > > Regarding the two books (Daniel and Antonio) I don't have
      > that
      > > > book sorry if i don't have idea.
      > > > >
      > > > > Dave
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
      > around
      > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • saje_jewel
      Mon, You don t need to apologize. You are entitled to react and to give comments. Again, that is what you call A-W-A-R-E-ness. Thanks. Saje ... a ...
      Message 86 of 86 , Jan 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Mon,

        You don't need to apologize. You are entitled to "react" and
        to "give" comments. Again, that is what you call A-W-A-R-E-ness.

        Thanks.

        Saje

        --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "karl_popper05"
        <karl_popper05@y...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I regret this message. I will drop this protruding petty cause of
        a
        > commotion.
        >
        > I apologize to Saje.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Mon
        >
        > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "karl_popper05"
        > <karl_popper05@y...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Since you did not made your point against my challenge, you
        appear
        > as
        > > a cyber-fluff-nonsense. A purveyor of lies. A malicious person
        > never
        > > have the desire to discuss logically and sincerely but to
        forward
        > > ignominious ideas, purely false ideas. You're hiding in a
        different
        > > SN just to tolerate yourself more of your lies. By the way my
        real
        > > name is MON.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "saje_jewel"
        > <saje_jewel@y...>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Butterfly!
        > > >
        > > > Saje
        > > >
        > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "karl_popper05"
        > > > <karl_popper05@y...> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > > Let me make this reply short because I don't want to waste
        > more
        > > > of
        > > > > > my time answering your repetitive illustration. It is
        obvious
        > > > that
        > > > > > your thought didn't even come from your own, it has words
        > from
        > > > book
        > > > > > written all over it and has been overly used and mis-used
        many
        > > > > times.
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > However, to accuse my own messages here as repetitive is for
        > you
        > > to
        > > > > present evidence. This evidence should be logical and
        detailed.
        > > The
        > > > > fact you never tried to offer substantial counter-arguments
        to
        > my
        > > > > thoughts laid here. These thoughts as necessary
        clarification
        > of
        > > my
        > > > > claims/side.
        > > > >
        > > > > Another balderdash you are doing is accusing me this
        groundless
        > > > > notion that my thoughts here didnt came from my own implying
        > that
        > > I
        > > > > am plagiarizing the thoughts of other people. This is one of
        > the
        > > > most
        > > > > sensitive and outrageous accusation against me by you. This
        > > > > accusation is a purely false idea.
        > > > >
        > > > > To deal with you here fair and square, I challenge you to
        > present
        > > > the
        > > > > proofs that I really am doing it so.
        > > > >
        > > > > One of my suggestions here is for you to juxtapose my own
        > > thoughts
        > > > to
        > > > > the people you think I've stolen their own ideas.
        > > > >
        > > > > ~ ~ ~ Please quote my thoughts here and then compare to the
        > > > thoughts
        > > > > of the people that you supposed I've claim as mine but were
        > really
        > > > > owned my them. Cite the book/s that supposed to be contains
        my
        > > > > thoughts. Exactly quote the words, the thoughts, the notion
        that
        > > > > EXACTLY speak about my understanding of consciousness.
        > > > >
        > > > > If you can not show the irrefutable proof here that I am
        > > > > plagiarinzing other people's thoughts/philosophy here, you
        must
        > be
        > > > > the MOST STUPID and SILLIEST person I am dealing with in
        this e-
        > > > group.
        > > > >
        > > > > Be sure that those false ideas you are forwarding are based
        on
        > > > solid
        > > > > grounds.
        > > > >
        > > > > I am waiting for your reaction here. Please present the
        DETAILED
        > > > > proofs. If you can not provide. I will make the conclusion
        in
        > > > advance
        > > > > that you are rather a purveyor of nonsense balderdash, in
        > short, a
        > > > > liar instead of dealing with me logically and sincerely while
        > > > > maintaining integrity to our thoughts as original as we hold
        and
        > > > > forward here.
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > > First of all, if you can't distinguish such words
        > > > between "THINGS"
        > > > > > to "EVERYTHING", I don't know how I can get deeper into
        it,
        > and
        > > > if
        > > > > > you can't even use your common-sense in comprehending the
        > basic.
        > > > > > Then it is not my problem.
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > Due to your incoherency, you have created such thought above.
        > > > >
        > > > > LEt us again analyze your OWN statement. I will quote.
        > > > >
        > > > > "But first of all, A THING REPRESENT A-N-Y thing of E-V-E-R-
        Y-
        > > > thing,
        > > > > depending on each individual being conscious of it. (SAJE)
        > > > >
        > > > > Now why such line of thought was produced by you?
        > > > >
        > > > > Going back further, I asked you about your understanding
        > > > of "THING".
        > > > > Now, for you to be clarified why I asked you about your
        > > > understanding
        > > > > of "THING" was that because you came to attack my notion
        > > > > that "consciousness is not a thing". Misunderstanding arised
        > from
        > > > > your in-ability to grasp the development of my thought about
        > > > > consciousness as not a thing. In which I made a grounding
        > > > definition
        > > > > of thing as an entity existing in the spatio-temporal
        reality.
        > > > > Misplaced criticisms from you because of this
        misunderstanding
        > to
        > > > my
        > > > > thoughts about consciousness have proliferated everywhere
        > however
        > > > > groundless they are, targetting none logically of m original
        > > notion
        > > > > about consciousness.
        > > > >
        > > > > When you said that a "thing" represent "anything"
        > of "everything",
        > > > > did you elaborate or substantiate this thought from you?
        > > > >
        > > > > You never tried, did you?
        > > > >
        > > > > Please analyze your understanding of thing from the above
        > thought
        > > > of
        > > > > your own. Arent you committing a circular argument, in short
        > > > > sophistic non-sense? If you were deeper into analysis, the
        quote
        > > > > tells nothing of THING. The meaning of I thing as I
        requested
        > you
        > > > to
        > > > > share it.
        > > > >
        > > > > Let us analyse more. This is the way you speak of thing:
        > > > >
        > > > > thing > (represent)any-THING > (of) every-THING
        > > > >
        > > > > Please correct me if the flow of your thought from "thing"
        > > > > to "everything" were mistaken as I simplified from your own
        > quoted
        > > > > statement.
        > > > >
        > > > > Now, from the simplied framework of your thought
        about "thing"
        > > > above,
        > > > > you ACTUALLY NEVER defined or gave meaning of THING itself.
        You
        > > > just
        > > > > extend and extend superfluosly ATTACHING PREFIXES to THING.
        > > > > our understanding of thing itself is same with the attempt of
        > > > > explaining the meaning of color as "red-color", "yellow-
        collor"
        > > and
        > > > > so on... but in fact, by all logical justifications and
        > > reckonings,
        > > > > you failed to show the meaning of color itself.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > > Do you even know what "talking tautologically" means?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > Exactly, that is what in my mind rendering your
        understanding of
        > > > > THING as tautological. Why tautological. It is a repetitive
        non-
        > > > > sense. Both sides of the equation of your thought about
        THING
        > > never
        > > > > have the hope of being extended beyond for further
        accumulation
        > > and
        > > > > development of knowledge. Earlier, I present your
        understanding
        > of
        > > > > THING similar to the statement "1+1 = 2". Both side of this
        > > > equation
        > > > > were equal according to definition. The left side, by
        > definition,
        > > > is
        > > > > absolutely enough to justify the right side, same with the
        > right
        > > > side
        > > > > justifying the left side. However, this kind of reasoning, is
        > > > > tautologous by nature. They are logically true according to
        > > > > definition i.e. mathematical language.
        > > > > Now, if you were keen enough you'll realize that your
        > > understanding
        > > > > of THING is tautologous by this following formula:
        > > > >
        > > > > thing = any-thing of everything
        > > > >
        > > > > Cant you see still how this argument is flawed as
        tautological?
        > > > >
        > > > > Let, X = thing
        > > > >
        > > > > and the PREFIXES
        > > > >
        > > > > a = any
        > > > > b = every
        > > > >
        > > > > and let as indicate
        > > > >
        > > > > "of" = ~
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > So your argument can be just simply re-written as
        > > > >
        > > > > X = aX ~ bX
        > > > >
        > > > > From that above statement, can a logical person think that X
        is
        > > > > justified in meaning in which this meaning is the essential
        > one?
        > > In
        > > > > which this meaning purely speaks of X in itself? However,
        see
        > from
        > > > > the above statement. You come to argue that "in order for X
        to
        > be
        > > X
        > > > > it should be "aX" of "bX" and this is utterly redundant and
        > > flawed.
        > > > > Superfluous non-sense telling nothing anything of X's
        essence
        > as
        > > > why
        > > > > it became as X.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > > Again, read and R-e-read everything that you have written
        and
        > > > that
        > > > > > would basically give you the definition.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > But did you justify this? If you accuse my own thoughts here
        (my
        > > > > proofs, my fundamental propositions) as tautological, you
        should
        > > > > present the detailed proofs why. I suggest you to come out
        from
        > > > your
        > > > > cage from purveying lies and to deal with my thoughts fair
        and
        > > > > square. Simply as that, rather than being fond of forwarding
        > > > richly-
        > > > > unsubstantiated claims against my thoughts here. I suggest
        you
        > to
        > > > re-
        > > > > evaluate my replies above in this matter.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > As far a being conscious to a THING is concern. Human have 5
        > > senses
        > > > > to go about it, if you know what I mean. Let me give you
        another
        > > > > illustration.
        > > > > Let us say about getting sensation after touching hot water.
        To
        > > > that
        > > > > person mind who felt it. I am sure in his mind; he was
        thinking
        > > > > that "ouch! That thing is hot." He became conscious to the
        hot
        > > > water
        > > > > because of the sensation. He started to feel the pain in it,
        and
        > > > > suddenly he will begin to be aware of it. If a thing is not
        > > located
        > > > > at any specific point, then you can never be conscious to it
        > > > because
        > > > > it does not exist for you to be conscious of it.
        > > > > Just think of yourself reading my reply to you, you are
        aware of
        > > > > what you read and at the same time, you are thinking – that
        is
        > > what
        > > > > you call self aware-ness and the inner and your private mind
        is
        > > > what
        > > > > we call it your consciousness.
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > Indeed, you made too much misunderstanding to my points. I
        > suspect
        > > > > that you are not doing your responsibility in digesting what
        the
        > > > > other side is saying to you either you agree or disagreee
        with
        > his
        > > > > points.
        > > > >
        > > > > Example:
        > > > >
        > > > > "If a thing is not located
        > > > > at any specific point, then you can never be conscious to it
        > > > because
        > > > > it does not exist for you to be conscious of it."(SAJE)
        > > > >
        > > > > I do not know of what's in your mind into making such
        statement
        > > > > above. This statement is simply created out from mis-reading
        of
        > my
        > > > > messages here if you mean to say that I am forwarding my
        > > > > understanding of "thing" as located "nowhere".
        > > > > I can not feel that this argument speaks for or against my
        idea
        > > > about
        > > > > consciousness.
        > > > > I am trying to lok for the ground of this argument why it is
        > > > > constructed i.e. What is the function of this argument as it
        is
        > > > > pointed to my own thoughts about consciousness? What is it
        > trying
        > > > to
        > > > > expose to my thoughts?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > I want to say again that my original proposition
        > > is "consciousness
        > > > is
        > > > > not a thing". It is consciousness that I am asserting as
        > located
        > > > no-
        > > > > where. What do I mean of this is that it is not located in
        the
        > > > spatio-
        > > > > temporal reality and I have provided proofs of this claim. I
        > want
        > > > to
        > > > > extend more of this that I do not imply a spiritual
        dimension of
        > > > > reality as the haven of consciousness beyond the spatio-
        temporal
        > > > > reality/world. Consciousness is not a thing in itself
        > indepndent
        > > of
        > > > > sense-perception experiences. The sense-perception
        experiences
        > are
        > > > > phenonema but no consciousness in itself for consciousness
        is
        > > just
        > > > a
        > > > > conceptual category of the totality of the sense-perception
        > > > > experiences. Consciusness is just a logical idea. Neither it
        is
        > > > > spirtual nor physical. What the physical things are the
        > > experiences
        > > > > of our sense-perception. The products of this sense-
        perception
        > > > gives
        > > > > us the ground into formulating a unifying conceptual category
        > > > > called "consciousness". However, we can never contain
        > > consciousness
        > > > > itself as separate from sense-perception reality so as to
        > > > say, "This
        > > > > X action is consciousness". Whenever sense-perception absorbs
        > > > > experience the concept "consciousness" will likely comes
        into
        > our
        > > > > mind as the result. Therefore, "consciousness" is not the
        > reason
        > > > but
        > > > > just the result. Consciousness is not the reason of our
        sense-
        > > > > perception or "self-awareness".
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > > Just think of yourself reading my reply to you, you are
        aware
        > of
        > > > > > what you read and at the same time, you are thinking –
        that
        > is
        > > > what
        > > > > > you call self aware-ness and the inner and your private
        mind
        > is
        > > > > what
        > > > > > we call it your consciousness.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > After analyzing your statement above, I have this conclusion
        > that
        > > > it
        > > > > is redundant and absurd.
        > > > >
        > > > > Why?
        > > > >
        > > > > Let us show the detailed analysis:
        > > > >
        > > > > You said:
        > > > >
        > > > > "...that is what you call self aware-ness and the inner and
        your
        > > > > private mind is what we call it your consciousness."
        > > > >
        > > > > I have this feeling that you just used different terms that
        > means
        > > > > totally the same(according to the context the way you
        explain
        > them
        > > > > here) thing but no further meaingful extension of knowledge
        to
        > > > grasp
        > > > > the essence of the individual terms you posit.
        > > > > You are unaware that you come to express the meaning of a
        term
        > by
        > > > > using an another term in which this "another term" requires
        > > itself,
        > > > > supposed to be, independent criteria to justify its own
        essence
        > > > > absolutely different from the "other terms". Very ambiguous.
        > > > > You come to posit terms in an ambiguous manner in which you
        > > > attempted
        > > > > to surround this terms with same terms in which, in
        themselves,
        > > > > requires explanation necessarily distinguished them
        individually
        > > > > with no further question.
        > > > >
        > > > > Simply means that you just play with words. Or in other
        essence,
        > > > > nonsense sophistication. You coem to fondly accuse me as
        > commtting
        > > > > circular arguments and yet it is crystallsing that you come
        to
        > > > > committ this thing everywhere in your arguments.
        > > > >
        > > > > You are just trying to replace "consciousness" with "private
        > mind"
        > > > > or "inner mind".
        > > > > the worse here is that you come to be redundant by uttering
        > > > > "inner and private mind".
        > > > > If we were to anaylze this "inner" and "private" means the
        same
        > > > thing
        > > > > SPEAKING about the mind. Logically, we can speak of
        this "inner"
        > > > > and "private" as same in nature and essence as the mode of
        the
        > > > mind's
        > > > > reality.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > > In short, our consciousness is what we're aware of when you
        > > > > > introspect. It is like when you are paying attention to
        what
        > is
        > > > > > going on inside of you, that's consciousness. Also,
        > > consciousness
        > > > > > consists of any kind of sensations (as I illustrated
        above),
        > > > > > thoughts, emotions and feelings, beliefs, and free choices
        > that
        > > > > make us to exists, alive and aware.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > The crucial statement here is:
        > > > >
        > > > > "In short our consciousness is what we're aware of when you
        > > > > introspect".(SAJE)
        > > > >
        > > > > Again, do not you see now that everytime you accuse me as
        > > commtting
        > > > > ciruclar arguments, it always backfires to you.
        > > > >
        > > > > Take not that you say:
        > > > >
        > > > > "..consciousness is what WE ARE AWARE OF"
        > > > >
        > > > > Simply put into equation,
        > > > >
        > > > > consciousness = we are aware of
        > > > >
        > > > > Same tautologous reasoning and tells nothing about
        > consciousness.
        > > > > Actually, it is repetitive nonsense. A word (consciousness)
        was
        > > > just
        > > > > replaced by another words (we are aware of). It is just like
        a
        > > > person
        > > > > using to two languages to explain what he has in mind. Like
        when
        > > > > asked "What is "red"? You'll respond by saying "It is "pula"?
        > > > > However, we know that "red" and "pula" logically means the
        same
        > > > only
        > > > > were uttered into two different langauges. That is how you
        > speak
        > > of
        > > > > consciousness. You came to sophisticate the word
        > (consciousness)
        > > > with
        > > > > other terms in which they logically means the same thing.
        > > > >
        > > > > If consciousness is "what we are aware of" you are implying
        that
        > > > > this "we are aware of" categorical term has an independent
        > > physical
        > > > > and logical reality different from consciousness.
        > > > >
        > > > > Just like saying the statement:
        > > > >
        > > > > "I am aware of my consciousness".
        > > > >
        > > > > This statement is meaningless.
        > > > > You attempt to say that consciousness becomes aware of iself.
        > > > > the word "consciousness" already gives us the knowledge that
        > > there
        > > > is
        > > > > already this "(self)aware-ness" if we mean that "self-
        awareness"
        > > > > and "consciousness" describe the same experiences.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > However, none of what in my brain states are true or false.
        No
        > > > > scientist can cut my head and can look at the state of my
        brain
        > > and
        > > > > say, this particular state of brain is true or false – so
        > meaning
        > > > > there is something inside of my brain is true to my
        conscious
        > > > states
        > > > > that are not true of any of my brain states, and
        consequently
        > they
        > > > > can't be the same thing.
        > > > > I have my own way for what is happening in my mind that is
        not
        > > > > available to anyone. So our consciousness is very private
        and no
        > > > > can know that, not even a scientist only yourself.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > Your(our) consciousness can never be private. A conceptual
        > > category
        > > > > has no private reality. If it's private, then logically, it
        is
        > > non-
        > > > > existent. Why non-existent? There is no logical reality that
        is
        > > > > hidden. It can not be even called logical if it is not
        grasped.
        > > It
        > > > is
        > > > > simply nothing. Again, consciousness is not a phenomenon or
        > thing
        > > > as
        > > > > residing in the spatio-temporal reality.
        > > > > If you were to speak that "consciousness is very private",
        then
        > > you
        > > > > come to confine and contain in a corner the other
        experiences
        > > > absorb
        > > > > by the sense-perception. This totality of our experiences
        > > > > fundamentally produced by your sense-perception EARNS the
        > > > conceptual
        > > > > category we call now as "consciousness". It is not that
        > > > > consciousness "came into existence" first before the
        emergence
        > of
        > > > our
        > > > > experiences. Our "experiences" is the reason why we come to
        > > > formulate
        > > > > the "consciousnes reality". So from here, anybody can
        discern my
        > > > > thoughts that if I do not believe in th physical reality of
        the
        > > > > consciousness neither I am implying of a spiritual reality
        of it
        > > > > (consciousness). It means rather, that "consciousness"
        > > > > and "experiences" are one and only one. If the atoms compose
        of
        > > > > electrons, neutrons, and protons. Then these atoms and their
        > > > > composition "electrons, neutrons, protons", means the same
        > > reality.
        > > > > Only in conceptual categorization that they are different.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > SAJE:
        > > > >
        > > > > To end this and I conclude that it seems to me that you
        probably
        > > > > read a book or two regarding the topic of consciousness and
        you
        > > > took
        > > > > those books into heart and decided to consent it to be the
        truth
        > > > > with out understanding it and putting it to test.
        > > > >
        > > > > KARL:
        > > > >
        > > > > Take note that you speak of "probably and so so..."
        > > > > However, you never supported this acussation.
        > > > > To justify your claim, please provide the proofs if my
        thoughs
        > > here
        > > > > were not originally mind. Of course people in centuries
        speak
        > of
        > > > the
        > > > > categorial
        > > > terms "I", "thoughts", "Notions", "Consciousness", "Mind",
        > > > > "Spatio-Temporal", "Essence" and so on.
        > > > >
        > > > > If you came to encounter a person saying those terms does it
        > > > qualify
        > > > > him as stealing ideas from others. You failed to understand
        that
        > > > > there is this affinity of understanding among intellectual
        > people
        > > > > daling with philosophical issues. Otherwise, without the
        > > knowledge
        > > > of
        > > > > what these terms means communication among thinkers is
        > > impossible.
        > > > Or
        > > > > simply there is no ground of knowledge in discusing reality.
        I
        > > want
        > > > > to say here that the "ground of knowledge" that is in my
        mind is
        > > > > about the use and meaning of those terms above to the other
        > > > thinkers
        > > > > dealing with them. In no way that when we tackle
        consciousness
        > in
        > > > the
        > > > > philosophical level we loses the originality on our own
        notion
        > > > about
        > > > > it.
        > > > >
        > > > > Beyond your ungrounded accusation, I am demanding from you
        the
        > > > > proofs. This is highly sensitive issue. I want to redeem my
        > self
        > > my
        > > > > integrity when forwarding my own ideas in such philosophical
        > > > > discussions. I do not mean that my understanding "should be
        the
        > > > > correct one and to believe it". You have your own mind to
        > > > understand
        > > > > reality. However, the case here is about the personal rights.
        > > > > The issue here already goes beyond mere
        > > > > logical/intellectual/philosophical clarification and
        exchange of
        > > > > ideas. Sorry, to express this personal feeling but your
        attempt
        > is
        > > > > malicious. You come to expose me as stealing ideas of other
        > people
        > > > > however they are unjustified.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Sincerly,
        > > > >
        > > > > Karl
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.