A thought I had about conciousness. - General

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17725711]So are you saying all of our actions are determined, that we lack free will, and that consciousness is just an illusion? If so, you fall into problems that John Hick highlights.[/QUOTE] Studies of the Sub Conscious have shown that your decisions are premade by the Sub Conscious well before the "primary" conscious makes the decision.

[QUOTE=trogdor6666;17725741]I know what feelings are, that wasn't a literal question. It's easy to understand consciousness from an outside perspective, but when you try to think about it introspectively, it's very weird.[/QUOTE] How is it weird? I find the existence to be weird. But consciousness is not weird at all. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17725659]Does it not? Why doesn't it?[/QUOTE] Read my walls of text. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17725711]So are you saying all of our actions are determined, that we lack free will, and that consciousness is just an illusion? If so, you fall into problems that John Hick highlights.[/QUOTE] Our actions are detirmened and we lack a free will. But it is not an excuse for not doing things, like helping people. Because you have to chose your set destiny. How does this work? By harvesting the experience and knowledge that your future is set you may also "change it" to your liking by harvesting information and experience that makes you do the right decisions when needed. You do not chose so, as your action to do these things are as always based on what has happened and what is now, but you still do. Consciousness is real however, anything else would be weird. Consciousness is what makes you able to use your pre-harvested information and experience onto the now, what you see, feel, hear and smell. Without consciousness you would not harvest any experience nor information.

[QUOTE=dgg;17725865]How is it weird? I find the existence to be weird. But cosciousness is not weird at all. Read my walls of text. Our actions are detirmened and we lack a free will. But it is not an excuse for not doing things, like helping people. Because you have to chose your set destiny. How does this work? By harvesting the experience and knowledge that your future is set you may also "change it" to your liking by harvesting information and experience that makes you do the right decisions when needed. You do not chose so, as your action to do these things are as always based on what has happened and what is now, but you still do.[/QUOTE] But if we lack free will and are totally determined, then how can we know anything? "Know" not in a spiritual sense or anything, but know. [url]http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article5.html[/url] Read it. [editline]05:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hunterbrute;17725849]Studies of the Sub Conscious have shown that your decisions are premade by the Sub Conscious well before the "primary" conscious makes the decision.[/QUOTE] Sub conscious. Show me these studies.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17725896]But if we lack free will and are totally determined, then how can we know anything? "Know" not in a spiritual sense or anything, but know.[/QUOTE] How can we not know things? Some people are attracted to the unknown and others afraid of it, they both naturally want to get to know about it and those who are attracted to it would also want to experience it. This makes for experience and knowledge about it. Then we may use that knowledge with other already known knowledge and add 1+1 together and get 2. It is creativity all the way, applying two different knowledges to create a new form of knowledge. Take babies, they try to eat everything, soap, sand, carpets, toes, you know, everything. This is because it is all unknown for it and it want to get to know how it works and if it is edible so it can use it for survival. This will cause death amongs many in an early civilization as people will have to die in order for others to know it is deadly. But the people who have survived and observed it will now know that and that is deadly and that and that is edible. We know we live because we have been attracted to the previously unknown object that is our body and how it works.

I thought about this ages ago, while watching The Fly.

[QUOTE=dgg;17725943]How can we not know things? Some people are attracted to the unknown and others afraid of it, they both naturally want to get to know about it and those who are attracted to it would also want to experience it. This makes for experience and knowledge about it. Then we may use that knowledge with other already known knowledge and add 1+1 together and get 2. It is creativity all the way, applying two different knowledges to create a new form of knowledge. We know we live because we have been attracted to the previously unknown object that is our body and how it works.[/QUOTE] [quote=John Hick]To get at this question, suppose there is a non-determined observer watching our totally determined world from outside it. This observer is able to think freely, to direct her attention at will, to weigh up evidence and consider reasons, and out of all this to form her own judgments. She can see that our world is a completely determined system and that everyone in it is completely determined in all their actions, thoughts, imaginings, feelings, emotions, day dreamings, visualizings, and all their reasoning, judging and believing. But whilst this undetermined observer knows that we earthlings are all completely determined she knows it in a sense of 'know' in which even those earthlings who correctly believe it nevertheless do not know it. I am not here invoking an ideal sense of 'know' in which it turns out that we can only be said to know tautologies, but am using the term in the everyday sense of knowledge as well-based rational belief. Thus if there is or could be free will including, crucially, non-determined intellectual volitions, a free being can come rationally to hold beliefs in a sense in which a totally determined being never can. Let us for convenience call the free being's knowledge knowledge A and the determined being's knowledge B, and speak of them as functioning respectively in mode A and mode B. Given this terminology, I suggest that those who believe that a total determinism obtains, and who of course believe that they are right in so believing, are in the impossible position of implicitly professing to function in mode A when, if they are right, they must in fact be functioning in mode B, the determined mode. This, I suggest, is a self-refuting position in the existential sense incurred, for example, by someone who says, 'I do not exist'; for in order for anyone to assert that he does not exist, what he asserts must be false. Likewise, to assert in mode A - that is, as an evidence and reason based judgment, - that all judgments including this one can only be made in the physically determined mode B, is to be in a state of existential self-contradiction. In other words, the argument between the determinist and the non-determinist can only take place in what both assume to be mode A. But whereas the non-determinist believes that what they are both assuming is true, the determinist believes that it is false, and is thus claiming to know in mode A that there is no mode A. [/quote] You haven't answered it.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17725977]You haven't answered it.[/QUOTE] Obviously not because it was not here in the thread. I will read it now.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;17722250]That's probably not the case, but if it was, there'd be no way to tell. Describe the color "red" to me ;)[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter what "red" looks like. As long as two individuals observe the same wavelength, and interpret accordingly, they will see the same colour.

Those are two possibilities. Either we're all your illusions or we're all reactionary beings. Of course, consciousness is still a real illusion either way. Its quality of being illusory does not interfere with its quality of seeming real. And those aren't the only two possibilities. As for what happens when you destroy one body and create a new instance of it in another place, I think you described it excellently with your "entity of consciousness." You should read Daniel Dennett's "Where Am I?" [url]http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/WhereAmI.html[/url]

[quote=Johnny boy]To get at this question, suppose there is a non-determined observer watching our totally determined world from outside it. This observer is able to think freely, to direct her attention at will, to weigh up evidence and consider reasons, and out of all this to form her own judgments. She can see that our world is a completely determined system and that everyone in it is completely determined in all their actions, thoughts, imaginings, feelings, emotions, day dreamings, visualizings, and all their reasoning, judging and believing. But whilst this undetermined observer knows that we earthlings are all completely determined she knows it in a sense of 'know' in which even those earthlings who correctly believe it nevertheless do not know it. I am not here invoking an ideal sense of 'know' in which it turns out that we can only be said to know tautologies, but am using the term in the everyday sense of knowledge as well-based rational belief. Thus if there is or could be free will including, crucially, non-determined intellectual volitions, a free being can come rationally to hold beliefs in a sense in which a totally determined being never can. Let us for convenience call the free being's knowledge knowledge A and the determined being's knowledge B, and speak of them as functioning respectively in mode A and mode B. Given this terminology, I suggest that those who believe that a total determinism obtains, and who of course believe that they are right in so believing, are in the impossible position of implicitly professing to function in mode A when, if they are right, they must in fact be functioning in mode B, the determined mode. This, I suggest, is a self-refuting position in the existential sense incurred, for example, by someone who says, 'I do not exist'; for in order for anyone to assert that he does not exist, what he asserts must be false. Likewise, to assert in mode A - that is, as an evidence and reason based judgment, - that all judgments including this one can only be made in the physically determined mode B, is to be in a state of existential self-contradiction. In other words, the argument between the determinist and the non-determinist can only take place in what both assume to be mode A. But whereas the non-determinist believes that what they are both assuming is true, the determinist believes that it is false, and is thus claiming to know in mode A that there is no mode A.[/quote] First of all it sounds like this observer is not jack shit different from us because it does what we do. But ok, I will pretend it got a free will that does not base everything off of the surroundings together with current knowledge (which I have no idea how it would be able not to especially if it weighs up evidence and consider reasons to form a judgment) And no, you can perfectly and clearly function in mode A and prove it exists with the use of mode A. I can with a detirmined thought find out that my thoughts are detirmined because the detirmined way of thought will seek out and apply experience and knowledge it has found out through its curiosity onto other things. SCIENCE hello world. Science is the very root of detirmined thoughts, it uses knowledge and experience and applies it to other unknown objects. Then by using this knowledge on the unknown it expirements with it on it and observes it causing new observations and knowledges that may case previous knowledge to be wrong, partly correct but lacking things or it is an entirely new knowledge we can apply to other objects, and the object itself to further understand it by testing it with that knowledge. In the same way we will with out curiosity to seek new information by the use of current information study our body, and that includes the brain. We study how we think, act and react giving us the knowledge of how the brain works revealing that it works in such a way that we do not make any choices ourselves, but rather the environment and experience we apply to the now causes us to do what we do. It is hard to formulate this easily so sorry if some sentences are extremely heavy and hard to read.

I'm currently studying quantum mechanics, specifically Shrodinger's evil equation (the one you see in my avatar), and this shit comes to my head all the time. It's weird, you would think that the more science that you study, the less that you will believe in a supreme being (GAWD), but studying quantum mechanics and thinking about consciousness makes you draw back to the existence of "GAWD". You should check out the following videos if you're interested in quantum theory + consciousness. They could help you brainstorm some more. I just don't give a shit if I know or not anymore, since I'm going to die anyway, and times seems to go by "too fast". So my conclusion is life is too short to give a shit about this stuff, and just go out and enjoy life. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUIcOodnM[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqYfxuzR5dg[/media] Look in the related videos if you want more.

I read the TT and I thought "oh wow" and then I read your username and thought "oshi-" <.<

[QUOTE=dgg;17726160]First of all it sounds like this observer is not jack shit different from us because it does what we do. But ok, I will pretend it got a free will that does not base everything off of the surroundings together with current knowledge (which I have no idea how it would be able not to especially if it weighs up evidence and consider reasons to form a judgment) And no, you can perfectly and clearly function in mode A and prove it exists with the use of mode A. I can with a detirmined thought find out that my thoughts are detirmined because the detirmined way of thought will seek out and apply experience and knowledge it has found out through its curiosity onto other things. SCIENCE hello world. Science is the very root of detirmined thoughts, it uses knowledge and experience and applies it to other unknown objects. Then by using this knowledge on the unknown it expirements with it on it and observes it causing new observations and knowledges that may case previous knowledge to be wrong, partly correct but lacking things or it is an entirely new knowledge we can apply to other objects, and the object itself to further understand it by testing it with that knowledge. In the same way we will with out curiosity to seek new information by the use of current information study our body, and that includes the brain. We study how we think, act and react giving us the knowledge of how the brain works revealing that it works in such a way that we do not make any choices ourselves, but rather the environment and experience we apply to the now causes us to do what we do. It is hard to formulate this easily so sorry if some sentences are extremely heavy and hard to read.[/QUOTE] What Hick is saying is, sure, you may believe that you are determined but you will never know. And how is the illusion of free will any different from free will? [quote=Hick again]The right response to this is, I think, that Yes we may be totally determined, in which case the determinist is determined in such a way that what he believes is true. But if so, none of us can ever know or rationally believe that this is the case. Two people debating the question would be like two computers purring away in accordance with their different programs, with only an outside observer operating in mode A being able to tell which is and which is not programmed to arrive at the truth. In the case of computers, the mode A outside observer is the programmer, who has to know what sound reasoning is in order to program a computer to reach it. Or of course if the computer is built and programmed by a prior computer, the mode A observer is the non-determined programmer of that computer; and so on in as long a regress as you like. And likewise with ourselves considered as fully determined computers. If anyone is to know what is true and what is false among the conclusions which differently programmed human computers reach, that cannot be any of us in mode B but could only be a non-determined mode A programmer. [/quote]

Wouldn't it be cool if you could just sit back and let fate take care of everything? Ignore the philosophical and physical ramifications, and just think about it :D

I had a thought about this as well. Like if we duplicated a human brain to the exact on a computer and simulated it would it be concious? Or would it be a simulation, I wonder where we draw the line.

I've always thought the world was just made for me and everyone else was a robot. Well, I use to anyway. It fucks with you mannn.

I think you can pretty safely deduce that a copy of you, however accurate, would carry no part of your consciousness, since you have nothing more in common with that body of matter than any other body of matter in the universe. Even if there was only "one consciousness," you, there is no reason to assume it would inhabit a copy of your body just because the original was destroyed. What would happen in both cases would be the same as if you died, so teleporting this way is committing suicide, even if your consciousness, for whatever reason, might live on after your bodily death.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17726296]What Hick is saying is, sure, you may believe that you are determined but you will never know. And how is the illusion of free will any different from free will?[/QUOTE] The illusion of free will is not different from free will with out current knowledge. They both feel the same for us so it does not matter at all. But the fact that there IS a difference between our way of thinking and that of a free mind is undeniable. It's just that it doesn't really matter. With our current knowledge there can not exist free will, this is also shown in Hick's theory. The free willed person does not have a free will because it acts on the exact same principles we do. We may not 100% prove that we are detirmined because we do not have anything not-determinded to prove it with. We have darkness but no light. This way we can never be sure if we really have darkness or if it maybe is light after all since we don't have light to compare with. There is absolutely no point in discussing this, but it is damn interesting to do so anyways. Just like with everything else that does not help you function. The only things that are worth discussing is health, how to cook food, how to eat food, how to eat proper food and how to drink. [QUOTE=trogdor6666;17726347]Wouldn't it be cool if you could just sit back and let fate take care of everything? Ignore the philosophical and physical ramifications, and just think about it :D[/QUOTE] Not really. Would be really boring. [QUOTE=conman420;17726503]I had a thought about this as well. Like if we duplicated a human brain to the exact on a computer and simulated it would it be concious? Or would it be a simulation, I wonder where we draw the line.[/QUOTE] It would be conscious, just not to us. For us it would only be some pixels moving around doing what it is told to do based on the code. But that isn't really different from us. But since we can not physically touch it and we can infact look into it's mind and see how it works 100% we do classify it to only be a simulation. But the program is conscious from it's own point of view. [QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17726775]I think you can pretty safely deduce that a copy of you, however accurate, would carry no part of your consciousness, since you have nothing more in common with that body of matter than any other body of matter in the universe. Even if there was only "one consciousness," you, there is no reason to assume it would inhabit a copy of your body just because the original was destroyed. What would happen in both cases would be the same as if you died, so teleporting this way is committing suicide, even if your consciousness, for whatever reason, might live on after your bodily death.[/QUOTE] Indeed. It would actually still be you, and do exactly what you would do, so in that sense it is you in every possible way and your friends would not notice any difference. But it is a new you that you personally have no relationship to. As it has been stated here a couple of times before too.

[QUOTE=Dr. Schrodinger;17726178]I'm currently studying quantum mechanics, specifically Shrodinger's evil equation (the one you see in my avatar), and this shit comes to my head all the time. [/QUOTE] This is unrelated, but what is the name of the symbol in that equation? I've often seen it mentioned in my friend's physics books and in jokes that I don't get.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;17722472]Answer B is a step away from determinism. Determinism is essentially a philosophy that says that each particle of matter, each atom has it's own trajectory and it moves in a set direction and speed. Which means that every event is pre-determined, and if someone built a machine that could keep track of every single particle in the Universe we would know the future beyond any doubt. That's my best explanation of it, if you want to read any more about it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism[/url] Philosophy is some weird(but interesting) shit.[/QUOTE] I haven't really heard of determinism yet, but i've always thought about things this way. Basically every event and action has its consequence and every event is a consequence of one or more previous events. Any single object or an event, no matter how small or big (even the smallest existing particle) can affect everything that exists, either directly or through a series of chain reactions. Makes perfect sense to me. Our mind works the same way as a consequence of chemical reactions/electricity/whatever in our brain. Our decisions are all affected by the events that happened in the past, things we've already learned and experienced and also by the physical condition of our brain. Given all these starting conditions, there's always only one possible outcome (the decision that we make). Now someone might say that for any decision your mind makes, you could've chosen a different option. You could, but there's a reason you chose the one you did: if it was a random 50/50 choice it was probaly caused by a "random" chemical reaction in your brain, if it was a more serious choice, there were some bigger reasons why it happened. If you would've chosen the other option, initial conditions would have to be different, meaning that entire history of everything would have to be different than it is now. In my opinion, everything that happens has already been determined at the very beginning, and nothing is random. Great thread by the way, i think about these things a lot, it's very interesting to discuss them like this. Also for some reason thinking about these things makes me cry. I'm not sad, it just brings tears to my eyes. I can't really describe the feeling.

@OP: This is a nice coincidence, I have been thinking about the exact same argument you made of the last few days. Especially in regards to proposition A, although I believe (or at least want to believe) B to be true. The main thing that scares me about A is that it is ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE. This is why: [release]Inside every universe, due to its vast volume and long time line, many billions of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain]Boltzmann Brains[/url] arise due to natural fluctuations as the universe tries to be more evenly spread out after a Big Bang like event. A small proportion of these (but still a vast amount) will be in a "dreaming" state - imagining a world to live in (eg your A argument). The main point of the Boltzmann Brain argument is that it is much, much more likely for a Boltzmann Brain to form than a universe capable of creating life through "conventional" means. Think about that... for every universe there are billions of Boltzmann Brains that dream up a world to live in. As long as there are more than two of these brains VS every universe that can create "conventional" life that has been or ever will be (universes will always keep being created and destroyed so this will be an infinite amount) there would be INFINITELY MORE brains that are dreaming a world than universes that support normal life. INFINITELY MORE. Therefore ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that this universe is just the dream of some sort of complex being floating around in the void of some universe (GAWD?). This would mean (as you stated) the whole world "we" experience is just imagined with only one actual intelligence that is the protagonist of the dreamer. As you said, that would be you (...but I know it's me because I can consciously experience thing? Anyone could say this and it's impossible to prove that I am the dreamer because I cannot prove it. Anyone could say they must be because they are conscious etc...). TL;DR, you all don't exist.[/release]

[QUOTE=Robert64;17727384]@OP: This is a nice coincidence, I have been thinking about the exact same argument you made of the last few days. Especially in regards to proposition A, although I believe (or at least want to believe) B to be true. The main thing that scares me about A is that it is ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE. This is why: [release]Inside every universe, due to its vast volume and long time line, many billions of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain]Boltzmann Brains[/url] arise due to natural fluctuations as the universe tries to be more evenly spread out after a Big Bang like event. A small proportion of these (but still a vast amount) will be in a "dreaming" state - imagining a world to live in (eg your A argument). The main point of the Boltzmann Brain argument is that it is much, much more likely for a Boltzmann Brain to form than a universe capable of creating life through "conventional" means. Think about that... for every universe there are billions of Boltzmann Brains that dream up a world to live in. As long as there are more than two of these brains VS every universe that can create "conventional" life that has been or ever will be (universes will always keep being created and destroyed so this will be an infinite amount) there would be INFINITELY MORE brains that are dreaming a world than universes that support normal life. INFINITELY MORE. Therefore ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that this universe is just the dream of some sort of complex being floating around in the void of some universe (GAWD?). This would mean (as you stated) the whole world "we" experience is just imagined with only one actual intelligence that is the protagonist of the dreamer. As you said, that would be you (...but I know it's me because I can consciously experience thing? Anyone could say this and it's impossible to prove that I am the dreamer because I cannot prove it. Anyone could say they must be because they are conscious etc...). TL;DR, you all don't exist.[/release][/QUOTE] No sir, you don't exist.

[QUOTE=Dr. Schrodinger;17726178]I'm currently studying quantum mechanics, specifically Shrodinger's evil equation (the one you see in my avatar), and this shit comes to my head all the time. It's weird, you would think that the more science that you study, the less that you will believe in a supreme being (GAWD), but studying quantum mechanics and thinking about consciousness makes you draw back to the existence of "GAWD". You should check out the following videos if you're interested in quantum theory + consciousness. They could help you brainstorm some more. I just don't give a shit if I know or not anymore, since I'm going to die anyway, and times seems to go by "too fast". So my conclusion is life is too short to give a shit about this stuff, and just go out and enjoy life. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUIcOodnM[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqYfxuzR5dg[/media] Look in the related videos if you want more.[/QUOTE] I don't trust quantum physics for revelations into philosophy. I'd rather wait until we have that nifty unifying theory that physicists are always blithering about. And since when is thinking wasting your life? You're fucking scientist, how the fuck can you say that. That's like a baker who says all food is shit and eating should be replaced by IV needles.

Ouch, fuck. I just read a bunch of science threads and felt confident about myself, but this thread is [I]heinously[/I] confusing.

[QUOTE=Robert64;17727384]@OP: This is a nice coincidence, I have been thinking about the exact same argument you made of the last few days. Especially in regards to proposition A, although I believe (or at least want to believe) B to be true. The main thing that scares me about A is that it is ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE. This is why: [release]Inside every universe, due to its vast volume and long time line, many billions of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain]Boltzmann Brains[/url] arise due to natural fluctuations as the universe tries to be more evenly spread out after a Big Bang like event. A small proportion of these (but still a vast amount) will be in a "dreaming" state - imagining a world to live in (eg your A argument). The main point of the Boltzmann Brain argument is that it is much, much more likely for a Boltzmann Brain to form than a universe capable of creating life through "conventional" means. Think about that... for every universe there are billions of Boltzmann Brains that dream up a world to live in. As long as there are more than two of these brains VS every universe that can create "conventional" life that has been or ever will be (universes will always keep being created and destroyed so this will be an infinite amount) there would be INFINITELY MORE brains that are dreaming a world than universes that support normal life. INFINITELY MORE. Therefore ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that this universe is just the dream of some sort of complex being floating around in the void of some universe (GAWD?). This would mean (as you stated) the whole world "we" experience is just imagined with only one actual intelligence that is the protagonist of the dreamer. As you said, that would be you (...but I know it's me because I can consciously experience thing? Anyone could say this and it's impossible to prove that I am the dreamer because I cannot prove it. Anyone could say they must be because they are conscious etc...). TL;DR, you all don't exist.[/release][/QUOTE] If this is my dream then I'm a fucked up brain. Regardless I'm an Occam's Razor man myself. Fuck all that bullshit, it only really leads you in circles.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17731541]Regardless I'm an Occam's Razor man myself. Fuck all that bullshit, it only really leads you in circles.[/QUOTE] Of course it only leads you in circles. it is just as pointless as discussing God versus not God. In the end you won't get anywhere because there is no definite proof to hold on to. And who really gives a rat ass? You live, live life instead of using it to try and figure a meaning to it and then end up dying without finding it out. If you really do exist or not doesn't really matter now does it? because you believe you exist and that's enough. Life won't change if you find out you don't exist. You will however become really sad/melancholic or completely carefree. But both those conditions are in their own ways not good. If you're extremely sad... Well it explains itself. And if you're completely carefree you might just get yourself killed or ruin others life just because you want to have fun. And does it really matter that they don't really exist? Can you go around killing, robbing and ruining peoples and your own life just because it's not really real? I mean, you have emotions, and you feel them regardless of the knowledge of being fake, and so does others.

[QUOTE=dgg;17731849]Of course it only leads you in circles. it is just as pointless as discussing God versus not God. In the end you won't get anywhere because there is no definite proof to hold on to. And who really gives a rat ass? You live, live life instead of using it to try and figure a meaning to it and then end up dying without finding it out. If you really do exist or not doesn't really matter now does it? because you believe you exist and that's enough. Life won't change if you find out you don't exist. You will however become really sad/melancholic or completely carefree. But both those conditions are in their own ways not good. If you're extremely sad... Well it explains itself. And if you're completely carefree you might just get yourself killed or ruin others life just because you want to have fun. And does it really matter that they don't really exist? Can you go around killing, robbing and ruining peoples and your own life just because it's not really real? I mean, you have emotions, and you feel them regardless of the knowledge of being fake, and so does others.[/QUOTE] Not quite. God is a construct that, regardless of it's existence, affects the minds and decisions of millions of people. Thinking about what it is and what it means is important when it's truthiness is already taken as a given by so many people. This consciousness bullshit is just bullshit circular double talk.

The "conciousness" was a typo, get over it please. Everybody is really fast to throw out the bad ratings.

Conciousness? I... just realized I didn't know how to spell conscience.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;17733076]The "conciousness" was a typo, get over it please. Everybody is really fast to throw out the bad ratings.[/QUOTE] I didn't rate you anything since there isn't any "interesting" rating.