Have You guys tried another spin? Caused and uncaused, like two sides of a single coin may meet somewhere, somehow?
In case of the coin, the Christ splendidly demonstrated, that we should give credence to Caesar, and to Man that, which belongs to their respective domains?
If that proposition is senseless, then primary on its respective substantial faces, they are only imprints on a piece of metal. The imprints are not real in the sense of 'something is real that was caused by the pressing of a substance against a substance.
But if the force it took to produce an image, it had to represent the image that force produced.
The metal is where the figure produced by the force becomes the image, literally.
It’s odd to say of the substance and the image that they meet somewhere, but in another sense they do.
They meet because the have never disassociated, they merely have always existed, the caused of the imprint and the uncaused of the image meet on another level.
What is that level? Is there that level other then the caused one that resulted in pressuring a force to create that image?
Is there a higher syntax within which the substantial can be included, rather then excluded?
The diamond unearthed used to be a tree, then a rock . The impression brilliance gives was literally a naturally caused process, the realization of that is devolutionary.
Can our entropic psychic process be comparable? Is our harsh insistence on anti-natural explanations which destroyed the basic reasons for our existence an undermining way below the level of that reason, and we are forced to jump into a higher mode of sense, more quickly that the substantial will allow.
We surface too quickly and we loose awareness of what it takes to build it.
Human consciousness is caused by the brain. The universe pre-existed human consciousness. I do not find human level consciousness a persuasive answer for both material, temporal and degree limitations. An uncaused thing cannot be explained because causes are explanations. So, the uncaused cause has no middle ground, because it is inexplicable.
You really don’t understand the most basic logic in all of existence!
If there is not internal and/or external, the object/being is non existent. That’s the definition of something that doesn’t exist (no otherness). I’m not even talking physical here, simply spiritual.
It’s ironic that the most basic logic in all of existence is rejected by someone presumably trying to use logic.
Thing is… you abandoned logic when the discussion got real for you!
I’ve been watching the conceptual confusions and language games in this thread for a couple days now and I gotta say sumthin. It’s killing me.
You cant ask ‘how’ because the statement is meaningless. But a philosopher wouldnt notice this and a huge discussion about nothing would follow.
Wittgenstein and Hacker would tell you that you’re talking about - or expecting, rather - the word ‘consciousness’ to be a thing or an event… and it would have to be for that statement to make any sense. But there is no more meaning to the word ‘consciousness’ than how it is used to describe some behavior. Nothing could be known about some inner and hidden private self that could be called ‘consciousness’.
In different words, you add nothing to the body if you include consciousness.
Further, if you probed the brain, you’d never find where and how consciousness ‘emerged’ from the matter.
Consciousness is the only thing that is experienced and demonstrates it exists. Something that is not/is other than a person and that which that person experiences has never been experienced.
If you probed the brain, you would find that it is made up of your consciousness [consciousness=“your experience of something made out of your experience of it”]; it is not made up of matter [something that is not/is other than your consciousness].
God can’t be otherness, because then God would be caused by that otherness. God cannot be caused, or there would be something greater than God. God isn’t Supreme if there is something greater.
The word “existence” generally means physical reality. It is circular reasoning to say only physical reality is true existence. I am not getting stuck in definitional circular logic traps.