@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
razzleg wrote:That is a bit confusing, and it mostly feels as if it were pandering. If you think matters are differently, then say so; if you "feel" differently, then say so. If pandering is your objective then go to a political forum, otherwise say what you think...
I think if you scope it down basically microscopically, life, that exists without a conscience... there is existence, without a conscience...but it is being, not existing, nor any reality...I think that existence without a conscience is not a reality at all...it is just being...
It is easy to see this is clear...Because if we did not understand existence, and reality...than we clearly are able to do it now, and look in hindsight, and say these concepts...But if we were not capable of inquiring about the very principals...there would be no real existence other than being...and we certainly would not understand a reality....
razzleg wrote:If you mean that self-consciousness necessarily develops a conscience, i would agree. And i would also agree that the development of conscience is a verification of self-consciousness. But i would not agree that reality is the result of self-consciousness. Many things happen that do not require consciousness (self- or otherwise.)
But does that = reality? What are some of these things?? I bet they are all inanimate things?? Therefore, they are being, not existing, or a reality...
Because if we were not here to understand, observe, change, alter them...Then they would just be...If you call that existence, and a reality, then I can not argue that...But that is not existence, or a reality to me...the point at which a reality is a reality...Is when something understands what reality is...and in effect observers, changes, alters, accepts "it" If things do not, and nothing can, then it is just being, and the "proof" is it would not matter if they exist at all, or not...therefor, there it is the same as no existence, and there is no reality...
Well then, a large part (although perhaps not the most vital portion) of our disagreement seems to be semantic. i think of "being" as a more vague and "abstract" concept. What you think of as "existence" is what i think of as "being", and what you regard as "existent", i regard as "historical" / or "subjective". i'm not interested in a semantic argument, so i'll do my best to lay those aspects of my argument aside, and conform to your nomenclature.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Reality comes, when something is created with the intelligence of understanding a conscience, and or questioning it, and or observing, and altering it, or accepting it in a way so that there are things that are understood and agreed upon...
razzleg wrote:That does seem to be putting the cart before the horse, doesn't it?
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:No, Not any different than looking in hindsight, and saying that life forms not smart enough to understand that reality comes at the point of understanding it, and questioning it...= reality...and still existing, and having a reality, or understanding what either are...And it is completely true, (think about it)
razzleg wrote:How is an event to be judged before it happens?
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:God...
razzleg wrote:That is to say, if reality is taken to be as some sort of ultimate, or limit experience, then it must occur prior to its evaluation. And if the evaluation is the determinative event, then doesn't that event take place before a conscience (as understanding) can develop? Which is it?
No, because if a God is real, then there are both...There is an ultimate, a life, is a limit experience...and there is no estimate of a decisive event (only by a skeptic)....Which throws things out of balance, although they do not see this...and it does neither, take place before, or after, but is constantly ongoing....Always was, and has been, and will be....
Well, the question of god's evident existence does seem to fit this thread's basic theme, but its certitude has not been proven in my reading of it. You seem to regard god as, at the very least, an observer, and i am not sure that this is verifiable. Being does not seem to require an observer. (Although i would refer you to Bishop Berkeley as a resource for your own point of view.) What if being occurred without a transcendental observer? Then existential life would only have access to hindsight without a definite guarantor. "Reality" would then be the product of a subjective consciousness, not an omniscient one. That would not make it "be" any less, by your standards, but it would make reality more tenuous.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Why do we all still have a conscience? Self-consciousness? If it is entirely distinct from reality? And to the harm or loss of understanding?? ( by you listing below)
Well, by our new, shared vocabulary, i wouldn't say that "conscience" is distinct from "reality", i would say that it is product of it (and while its presence verifies its contingent "reality", it does not guarantee it as a verifiable reflection or containment or definition of that "reality").
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:razzleg wrote:i am not saying that there is no such thing as conscience, but that conscience proceeds from the reality, and evolves with it...
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Read above, If God is real, then the conscience came Before, existence, and reality...To the point where if God himself is real, then they were always one...and If a God is not real...without a conscience to understand existence itself, or reality...There would be none...and if it makes you feel better...there would be existence of things...Which I call being....But they would not understand what a reality is...or what reality means...We can do this, and say this, by looking back, and using hindsight...This shows we NEEDED a direct link or correlation to the line of a conscience to "understand" existence, and reality....If we did not ever have it, How could we say we existed, or had a reality, when we do not know what they are, or mean?? This shows, that the point existence is existence, and reality is reality, is when we knew, and understood, what they mean, and were, and are...If we never did, we would have never known...So much so, It would not even matter if there was The Universe, Time, Space, Sun, Moon, Planets, Water, Oxygen, etc...
razzleg wrote:Its natural contrast is against expectations or statistics...
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Zing!...That "proves" it is a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT to understand what existence, and reality are!
By my model, individual consciences are possible without an omniscient consciousness. There is no necessary point to individual consciousness, and consciences are results (not predetermined goals.) Existence (or reality) may continue without evidence, or certitude, or faith in a god. Your last point that understanding is a "necessary requirement" of "existence" might actually be true, for homo sapiens, but that does not make it a "proof" of divine activity.
