Philosophy: The Nature of Consciousness

======================= The Universe Yields Consciousness ======================= {Quote} Con: My opponent claims that there is no sufficient connection between the Universe and consciousness other than the necessity of the Universe to exist. This is obviously not the case as I demonstrated in my first argument. The Universe is the environment from which we depend on to live. The Universe not only gives rise to consciousness, but is directly linked with and provides essentials for consciousness to survive." Pro: Again, read my argument. I noted that there is a necessary connection between the universe and consciousness (for consciousness, and everything else, to exist the universe first must do so), there is not an adequate sufficient one. {/Quote} As you can see above, I explained that there is a connection between the Universe and consciousness other than the necessity of the Universe to exist, yet my opponent appears to have overlooked it because he brought up the same argument I have already contended. {*In other words, even if the universe existed this does not mean that in all cases consciousness will arise -- you can have a universe devoid of life or anything conscious.*} This is a Red Herring and has no relevance to the debate. I have never claimed, that in all cases, consciousness will arise out of a universe. This debate is about consciousness being "of" the Universe as opposed to a mere nervous system. It matters not if consciousness will arise out of a universe in all cases. We are talking about this universe where consciousness has already arised. {*I'll use your apple tree analogy against you. While the apple is necessarily connected to the apple tree for vitality and supplement, it is not the case that ever time an apple tree exists so do apples (you can have a barren apple tree). Thus, take the analogy to the universe-consciousness relationship.*} Another Red Herring and a concession that my argument is true. He agrees that the apple is connected to the apple tree for vitality and supplement the same way consciousness is to the universe. He then tangentially claims that it is not the case that apples necessarily arise out of apple trees. Again, this has no relevance to the argument because consciousness has arisen out of this universe. {Quote} Con: It appears as if my opponent concedes that Alan Watts' proposition is an obvious fact. Pro: Yes, but I also point out that this obvious fact is a useless fact for defending your position. {/Quote} My opponent concedes the argument once again. He agrees that Alan Watts' proposition is an obvious fact and says it's useless for defending my position. However, my position is just that. My job in this debate was to defend Alan Watts' quote (see Round 1), in which case I have done successfully because my opponent agrees that it is a fact. ========== Consciousness ========== {*Now hold on, when the hell was I supposed to do that? In your fast round, you never added the additional phrase "isolated unit", which if taken to mean 'outside of the universe' I obviously do not uphold.*} Notice, you are defending the position that consciousness (as specified by the quote) is the MERE FUNCTION of a nervous system. You agreed to defend that. "Mere" means "considered apart from anything else; being nothing more nor better than; pure and unmixed." [1] "Isolated" means "free of external influence; alone." [2] I think I was warranted to use the word "isolated," however, this is irrelevant as it is purely semantics. The point that I was making was that you were unable to show that consciousness is the mere function of a nervous system as opposed to having a connection to the Universe. {*how can you even start to explain the mechanics of consciousness in relation to stars? It's an incoherent attempt.*} This has already been explained. We are talking about consciousness in relation to the Universe, not stars. ======== Conclusion ======== In conclusion, my opponent has conceded this debate. In the first round, he specified: "I'd like to have Geo defend this claim [Alan Watts' quote]." He later concedes that Alan Watts' quote is an obvious fact. {Quote} Con: It appears as if my opponent concedes that Alan Watts' proposition is an obvious fact. Pro: Yes {/Quote} Thank you for reading. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...