Silkroad Online Forums

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:51 pm**

DISREGARD POST BEFORE MY VERY LAST ONE; the thread was still in its "baby stages" [ i didn't really think it through and assumed that the monist vs dualist stance would be understood, but ToLoseGT brought up the point that the thread as it was, wasn't very debatable. ]

Hey guys well i think its about time we had another mature discussion. the last one was Evolution VS Creation[science/religion], and that went off pretty well. This time i want to make a Discussion that requires more cognitive effort; a philosophical discussion. So here goes part 3 -_- of my "SRF Discussion Threads"

Chapter1: Creation VS Evolution [Science/religion][went off well]
Chapter 2: Conscious awareness; is it necessary? [Philosophy/Religion][EPIC FAIL]
Chapter 3: Consciousness: is there room for the "soul"? [religious/philosophy] [TBA]
so before I start "chapter 3" I would like to lay down some rules:

*RULES*
1] I cannot stress this enough but; NO FLAMING! the following people AVOID THIS THREAD thank you: Reise, Redneck, crazyskwrls, ghostkilla43, HejsaN

2] Sarcasm is welcome as long as it is ON - TOPIC

3] Nonsensical babble is NOT welcome; if you don't understand the thread's content then or don't have anything to contribute there is a BACK BUTTON.

4] In Discussions there is no such option as neutral either you're on one side or the other [please keep this in mind as you post]

*Definitions*
I] mind -

the mind is what the brain does

II] conscious -

our awareness of ourselves and environment

III] unconscious -

information process we are unaware of

IV] Freudian Unconscious [obsolete] -

a reservoir of mostly unacceptable thought, wishes, feelings, and memory.

V] Monist/Monism [definition coming eventually]

VI] Dualist/Dualism [definition coming eventually]

********DISCUSSION*******

I propose that it is not necessary to be consciously aware of your environment because it is possible to preform task autonomously unconsciously before you, yourself, are consciously aware of the action occurring. I also propose that the conscious mind is simply a result or byproduct of the chemical interactions occurring in the unconscious brain. If basic Consciousness is not necessary could the plausibility of the immortal soul be disputed, and therefore could the purpose [reincarnation/afterlife] of most world religions be debunked?It would be a pleasure to Discuss this further so please post your propositions, or rebuttals.

This is a basic question of Monist VS Dualist or in other words: is there room for a body and soul, or is the body and soul intertwined therefore; rendering the foundations of specific worldly views irrational and incoherent.

in Laymen terms: is the soul real or not, and how can you tell?

*the post where it says begin is were the discussion truly starts please ignore any threads before that point*

any edits i make are grammatical/ spelling edits

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:01 pm**

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:07 pm**

Reise wrote:Guh?

Is that "guh" a sign of confusion, or just spam?

3] Nonsensical babble is NOT welcome; if you don't understand the thread's content then or don't have anything to contribute there is a BACK BUTTON.

EDIT: BEGIN!!!

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:36 pm**

Im pretty much unconcious at work. Im working away and i dont realise im doing it. Im just talking with the other people there and the work is just happening... I have to think about it to start off but once i get going it just happens.

But i guess my job is very simple, its a saturday job, i put stuff in boxes...

And then put those boxes into bigger boxes...

And then stack the boxes...

And then wrap the stack of boxes in some plastic shit...

Rinse and repeat.

Anywho,i dont think i would be able to do any of my programming work subconciously. Maybe once ive designed everything i could but the intial stuff requires too much thought.

Although, even if it is possible, not being conciously aware about everything is just gonna turn people into mindless drones and i guess it isnt exactly the most fun anyone has ever had either.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:38 pm**

Reise wrote:Guh?

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:06 pm**

If you say this is a lie then you must be dumb, do you have recollection of what you've done in the past 24 hours? all of it?

Have you ever watched "Click"? Well this is a lot like it. I do mundane things such as lighting a ciggie with one hand and protecting the flame with the other hand even if I'm indoors. Performing several tasks at the same time, for example, ou can usually find me really focused on SilkRoad yet I can keep a good conversation at the same time, but if you ask me what I just said I won't remember.

Of course there are tons of examples, not just in a computer but also at work, school, and day routine. Like when you wake up, it is when your mind is aware the most but your body isn't.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:23 pm**

Here is the Original Evolution/Creation Thread: Evolution/Creation Discussion. Although in that thread there was no definitive consensus that we could all agree to

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:23 am**

wierd its been like 3 hours, and only 2 serious responses [and 2 spammers

] i cant make a rebuttal especially when th etwo only real responses kinda agree with me kinda :/. although i do say the discussion is going quite well. now

BUMP! hopefully i wont have to bump it the next day, and the day after that -_-

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:28 am**

I propose that it is not necessary to be consciously aware of your environment because it is possible to preform task autonomously unconsciously before you, yourself, is consciously aware of the action occurring.

ur last part is basically scientific fact, so i'll talk about this first one.

the reason we don't have to be consciously aware of our environment is cuz for the first year we were born, we did everything consciously, cuz it was a new experience. this is also the same if we were to experience something new even at age 50. the more we do it, the more it becomes ingrained into our unconscious thought. likes walking, running, talking, using our hands, moving our eyes etc.

i really don't think there's much debate about this.

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:28 am**

i win ! 100% i dont think, liek right now

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:40 am**

TOloseGT wrote:
I propose that it is not necessary to be consciously aware of your environment because it is possible to preform task autonomously unconsciously before you, yourself, is consciously aware of the action occurring.
ur last part is basically scientific fact, so i'll talk about this first one.

the reason we don't have to be consciously aware of our environment is cuz for the first year we were born, we did everything consciously, cuz it was a new experience. this is also the same if we were to experience something new even at age 50. the more we do it, the more it becomes ingrained into our unconscious thought. likes walking, running, talking, using our hands, moving our eyes etc.

i really don't think there's much debate about this.

interesting point ok i "spiced" it up a bit. srf's OTL needs good controversial debates that even the average joe could participate in ^^

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:51 am**

what? no clue on this..

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:23 pm**

i dont understand this... b labla

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:29 pm**

You are unconsciously aware of over 400 billion bits of your environment ever second, but you are only able to consciously perceive 2000 of them (again, per second). Conscious thought is obviously necessary, because everything you do, aside from vital processes (yes, i have to add that for that one person who just happens to be dense enough to say that we don't consciously blink), is a conscious decision.

Whether or not you 'need' to be aware of your surroundings is irrelevant, because you cannot not be aware of them.

Discussion debunked.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:37 pm**

Aby wrote:You are unconsciously aware of over 400 billion bits of your environment ever second, but you are only able to consciously perceive 2000 of them (again, per second). Conscious thought is obviously necessary, because everything you do, aside from vital processes (yes, i have to add that for that one person who just happens to be dense enough to say that we don't consciously blink), is a conscious decision.

Whether or not you 'need' to be aware of your surroundings is irrelevant, because you cannot not be aware of them.

Discussion debunked.

yes, but what room does that leave for dualist or monist. [it seems like you're fence sitting

] are you a dualist or a monist?

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:39 pm**

I tend to agree. Consciousness is NOT necessary. There are many living organisms that do not possess consiousness, but live, survive and thrive. Their body responds to its surroundings, but are they thinking about their surroundings and making decisions? no. Now, is life mor enjoyable because of consciousness? That's an entirely different debate

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:39 pm**

The conscience mind is the result of the average Humans inability to absorb,process, and utilize all the information around them at once....I don't know what that has to do with the immortal soul which is not immortal and is made up of spiritual energy and therefore not grounded by the limitations or rules that apply to more tangible things like the accepted reality.

i still don't see a debate barotix....

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:42 pm**

And by saying "everything you do requires conscious thought" could be accurate. BUt, only for most non-vital processes, which are mere luxuries of society. Sure, I have to think about which laundry detergent to buy, because people now use washing machines to clean clothes, because long long ago societies decided clothing was necessary. But, in a primitive context, none of this garbage is necessary. It's certainly more entertaining and fun some times, but the junk we normally are "consious" of and think about is completely unnecessary

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:53 pm**

sirdingydang wrote:And by saying "everything you do requires conscious thought" could be accurate. BUt, only for most non-vital processes, which are mere luxuries of society. Sure, I have to think about which laundry detergent to buy, because people now use washing machines to clean clothes, because long long ago societies decided clothing was necessary. But, in a primitive context, none of this garbage is necessary. It's certainly more entertaining and fun some times, but the junk we normally are "consious" of and think about is completely unnecessary

You're completely off base. Refer to what i wrote in parenthesis after saying non-vital processes to clear up your misconception, blinking is a physical process, but it is not your conscious decision to continue blinking. It can become your conscious decision to stop blinking, and to begin blinking thereafter, but not to blink in the first place. Think of your conscious decisions as things you must concentrate on. I.e. walking. Without conscious though, we couldn't do anything because doing something is, by definition, a conscious process.

To barotix, I not only disagree, but am appalled by your fourth rule. How horribly close-minded of you to think that there only two views on any subject at all..

An enlightened person will tell you to view the world through a neutral perspective, only then can you judge without bias. As a personal recommendation to you, (meaning totally irrelevant to this debate apart from one of your "rules") I suggest you familiarize yourself with the lessons Buddhism strives to teach, as it is one of the most accessible ways to learn this.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:56 pm**

XemnasXD wrote:The conscience mind is the result of the average Humans inability to absorb,process, and utilize all the information around them at once....I don't know what that has to do with the immortal soul which is not immortal and is made up of spiritual energy and therefore not grounded by the limitations or rules that apply to more tangible things like the accepted reality.

i still don't see a debate barotix....

the conscious in some [most] religions is analogous with the soul: therefore without a conscious is there room for the "immortal soul" or just "soul"

. I really started to question the plausibility of a soul after thinking about patterns of sleepwalkers [i will explain later]

EDIT: i study Buddhism [Zen, I'm still trying to find a specific school which attracts me more than japan and china's rigid standards], but debates tend not to go well when there are to many sides voices and opinions. i ,myself, am also neutral on the subject of consciousness [i tried to make my opening neutral, but i don't like the way it sounds], but for this one discussion i will side with the monist who view consciousness as an unnecessary hindrance to the advancement of human kind in general. I'm formally Catholic and after indulging myself in too much Catholic History I've come to the conclusion that there is no true line between monist and dualist; I've noticed this especially in Christianity -_- whose dogmas and doctrines leave room for both the body and soul. [the body being a vessel which will rise, and the soul being your true self or conscious which will return to the body] <~~~ this creates a cycle, not unlike the cycles noted in Buddhism and Hinduism. Hmm i dont think that made a bit of sense[kinda in a hurry], but I'll be back to in like 2 or 3 hours.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:59 pm**

Aby, I guess you misunderstood me, or I didn't make it clear. I think that conscioussness is necessary for human beings, but that it is not necessary for life in general. Does that make sense?

Most agree that consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. We generally agree that our fellow human beings are conscious, and that much simpler life forms, such as bacteria, are not. Many of us attribute consciousness to higher-order animals such as dolphins and primates; academic research is investigating the extent to which animals are conscious. This suggests the hypothesis that consciousness has co-evolved with life, which would require it to have some sort of added value, especially survival value. And I think that for humans, it most definitely has survival value.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:59 pm**

And no, I don't believe in the idea of a "soul"

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:00 pm**

i believe in hot naked chicks tho

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:02 pm**

sirdingydang wrote:Aby, I guess you misunderstood me, or I didn't make it clear. I think that conscioussness is necessary for human beings, but that it is not necessary for life in general. Does that make sense?

Most agree that consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. We generally agree that our fellow human beings are conscious, and that much simpler life forms, such as bacteria, are not. Many of us attribute consciousness to higher-order animals such as dolphins and primates; academic research is investigating the extent to which animals are conscious. This suggests the hypothesis that consciousness has co-evolved with life, which would require it to have some sort of added value, especially survival value. And I think that for humans, it most definitely has survival value.

It was the latter then, the first part of your second paragraph clears up what you were trying to say, btu the second part I fear is gonna steer this discussion a completely different way

Also: Edit button, learn to use it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:49 am**

eh, why when we all know you can just get a higher post count>? :roll:

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:15 am**

I would comment but i would write a pageful then the next day another pageful disagreeing myself so **** it Dont matter in the end

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:55 pm**

wtf does 'is conscious necessary' mean in the poll, conscience? Just put it simple and understandable for outsiders like me. I think your definitions are a bit brief.

Silkroad Online Forums

[Discussion]Consciousness: is there room for the "soul&

[Discussion]Consciousness: is there room for the "soul&

Re: [Discussion]Consciousness: is there room for the "s