Philosophy: The Nature of Consciousness

And while I remain thoroughly unconvinced of his position, at least we have entertained it. ==================== CON claims: The Universe Yields Consciousness ==================== "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. " ----> 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. 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. In fact, this relationship is synonymous with anything that exists, thus showing more of the triviality your claim is. "Again, I point to the analogy of the apple tree. The apple and the tree can be separated, yet the tree still exists. The apple cannot survive (stay fresh without rotting) without being attached to and relying on the tree. Just like we and our nervous system cannot operate as a single, separate entity independent from the Universe. " ----> 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. "It appears as if my opponent concedes that Alan Watts' proposition is an obvious fact. " ----> Yes, but I also point out that this obvious fact is a useless fact for defending your position. ==================== Meaning of the Quote ==================== There is no disagreement here, except for the fact that this is useless ammunition for defending your proposition. As I've pointed out, given the fact that your claim establishes no special ground for consciousness, we should revert to the commonly supported conceptual models. ==================== Consciousness ==================== "He was also unable to demonstrate that consciousness is the mere function of a nervous system as an isolated unit. " ----> 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. As I've said before, FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST, it necessarily depends on the universe to first exist -- an absolutely trivial claim. What you are seeking to do is to show some mystic, "higher consciousness" that finds it's explanation and description in relation with the cosmos. Not only does you have insufficient philosophical grounds even lift off, but how can you even start to explain the mechanics of consciousness in relation to stars? It's an incoherent attempt. Rather, we should take a much more closer and intimate look at it - the position I propose. Not only is viewing it as a phenomena emerging from one's nervous system much more accurate and useful, but it allows us to answer many problems found in the philosophy of mind that Geo's philosophy is unequipped for.