Does the origin of consciousness point to a divine source or can it be purely material?
>can it be purely material?If consciousness was material it wouldn't be localized specifically to Earth.
>>24738131The fact that there's an experience happening right now, the fact that there's a self that sees all that is seeing and hearing right now, makes the experience real. Experience cannot be denied. We are aware of this experience happening, therefore consciousness is beyond anything. Even if the body dies, there must be an experience that happens afterwards, whether it is something or nothing. There must always be an experience and therefore, a consciousness. Therefore consciousness is real, self-existing and has always existed.
>>24738109>>24738165meant this to be for OP oops.
>>24738165>Even if the body dies, there must be an experience that happens afterwards ... There must always be an experience and therefore, a consciousness. Therefore consciousness is real, self-existing and has always existed.Was there an experience that happened before you were born?Stick a screwdriver through a man's ear, and his consciousness will end. There is undoubtedly a material basis to consciousness.
>>24738109If it was material, people would people be walking around like they had lobotomies
>>24738249There is and always has been an experience. As I said, experience is self-existing. The fact that there is a 'something' now means that there will be a something in the future. Whether you won't be seeing anything after you die is still an experience but the experience is still there. Whether there's a material map that allows for consciousness to exist in a human body does not deny the reality of consciousness, the concept of consciousness as a real thing. After all, even if you were matter, isn't it weird to even 'be' something in the first place?
>>24738284So it is material?
>>24738109Purely material? Certainly not. Divine? uh ... cosmically funny at the very least. You ever think about how the Eye of Providence looks like an asshole in the middle of spread buttcheeks?
>>24738109>Does the origin of consciousness point to a divine source or can it be purely material?I'm inclined to agree but this is all language game. What we call divine and developed to explain what we tacitly understand about consciousness
>>24739114Sure, if you think you have a lobotomy as well. You're not special. Well you probably are but not that kind of "special", just the drooling on yourself kind.
I don't know how to explain consciousness without God. What makes you, you? Why is my sense of self specifically tied to this body? If it's simply a combination of my genetic code then does that mean re-incarnation is bound to happen? But then where are all these "new" people coming from? Why am I the product of this specific combination and not any other? Isn't it surreal that we get to experience this state of hyper self awareness on this specific planet which took billions of years to evolve? Can you experience things if you're not a conscious being? Can you be considered conscious if you can't form memories? Like are babies conscious but unable to form memories hence unconscious? Does it take too many factors to be in the right place for it to happen?
>>24739289>Like are babies conscious but unable to form memoriesThat is debatable. Also you're a pseud.
>>24739396I can't be a pseud because I don't consider myself an intellectual. These are just thoughts I stumble upon when I think of consciousness.
>>24739402I guess I don't consider you an intellectual either.
>>24739406Not sure if you're an NPC or what but it was clear from the first message
>>24739416I think I am sure you're an NPC with your inability to pick up on sarcasm.
>>24739426It's not sarcasm if you mean it retard
>>24738109Consciousness points to life and is only divine insofar as life as a whole is divine. Consciousness is merely an organ of the animal for the purpose of the development of life in general and its propagation. The origin of consciousness is similar to the origin of any lifeform and is a working of the world-organism into its destiny of becoming universalised.
>>24738109Not even the material can be "purely material" as in describable. Every description rests on assumptions, building blocks which a model is constructed out of. Whatever it is in reality that's analogous to those assumptions logically precedes and is beyond anything we're describing.
>>24739433Truth can be spoken sarcastically.
take a look at Thomas Aquinas argument of the eternal nature of consciousness or of the soul. It basically because we know the nature of geometry, perfect lines, perfect circles, we know the formulas for making them, that begs the question, how we know eternal truths such as these, because perfects geometry does not exist in the world, it is as if geometry is the structure by which the human mind operates, so the mind must be something more than just matter.
>>24738131Is it?
