Unlimited Consciousness

"Forgive me if at times I don't follow the usual methods of communication or cite sources or my ‘authorities', as I refused to do my degree at University" That is fine, I never debated at university! My opponent states that, "I would contest the words ‘in actuality', as this ‘suggestion' of science is merely an unproven theory regarding the proven fact of bio-chemical activity within the brain having a direct relation to certain modes of thought, feeling and activity. We know there is a definite relationship. But am I to accept the ‘suggestion' that my True Consciousness - rather than activity within my brain - can be observed by a mere scientist, when it is plainly obvious I myself have not yet discovered my own consciousness fully. How could another individual have my ‘knowing' and prove it? How could they, by looking at some impulses in grey matter know anything at all about my true Identity, or yours?" However experimentation has shown that consciousness can be detected and observed, True Consciousness is a concept for which no evidence exists. The onus is on my opponent to show some form of evidence to suggest that there is a form of consciousness outside the realms of the physically observed. If reference to this my opponent explains that, "True Consciousness, which uses this body and animal ‘mind' as its instrument for learning purposes. Therefore, the area of our debate is how anyone can prove the existence of a superior Consciousness that uses the body, it senses and intellect for an unknown Purpose – that Purpose only being known when that Individual Consciousness either reveals itself to the lower intellect or is freed from the restrictions of the body and brain etc., But that's the point I made earlier in a comment – only that individual who experiences such a thing KNOWS it as it is! The fact that people have dreams, hallucinations, crazy notions and a kind of blind faith bears no relationship at all with this Superior Consciousness which cannot be known by intellectual debate" Here my opponent seems to state that, a) This debate concerns proof of existence for a true or transcendant consciousness. b) Such proof can not be presented in a debate. Therefore I feel that my opponent has conceded the debate. Hallucinations My opponent states that, "We know when we are awake, just like we do now while reading this. We know – unless we have faulty thinking through drugs, blind belief or accident – what our state of normal perceptive wakefulness is, and KNOW we are not hallucinating and can agree on certain unshakable principles and remain sane. " Hallucinations can occur when fully awake, sober, rational and uninjured. In such instances we can only know that we are hallucinating when such visions conflict with logic, or the rest of a given reality. In the absence of these we can not know the true nature of reality. Should I suddenly hear the voice of God in my head how will I ascertain at that point if I am hallucinationg, speaking with my sub-concious, insane, or talking to God? I do not feel that this issue, nor the issues of False Memory Syndrome or eyewitness clash have been addressed. To summarise my opponent argues for a true consciousness, he provides no evidence for this, my opponent claims that only personal experience can reveal this higher state, but fails to address the issue that personal experiences are subjective and falliable.