I don't exist. According to some philosophers they don't exist and I don't exist... . - Page 24

levi · 6th January 2013, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Yes, that is what it implies.

One more thing I wanted to add when I say "I exist" I mean , "my consiousness" does not exist according to mereological nihilism.

If this doesn't change marplots response than ignore it.

marplots · 6th January 2013, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by levi

One more thing I wanted to add when I say "I exist" I mean , "my consiousness" does not exist according to mereological nihilism.

If this doesn't change dafydd response than ignore it.

Your consciousness may or may not exist. If it does, it can't be said to be attached to anything reliably called "you."

Consciousness isn't a special property in mereological nihilism, it's just one of thousands of things we could talk about, like mass or pinkness or "smells like a fish." None of that matters one wit and isn't part of the concept. The concepts are only about the existence of physical things.

levi · 6th January 2013, 02:33 PM

I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process.

How can consiousness not be a physical process? Unless someone discovers a soul even though it is incredibly unlikely.

levi · 6th January 2013, 02:42 PM

double post

marplots · 6th January 2013, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by levi

I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process.

Levi,
Let me try it from a different direction.

Suppose I deny that faeries exist. I lay out my reasons and so forth.

Your question about consciousness would then be something like, "Well, what about pink faeries?" If I deny all faeries, then I've denied pink faeries as well.

But then you shift to something like, "Well, aren't you saying 'pink' doesn't exist then?" No, not at all. Pink may very well exist, just not attached to anything reasonably identified as faeries.

Perhaps the mistake comes in because you have tied in the notion of consciousness with your sense of self and existing. The "you" that mereological nihilism is denying would be the same you, conscious or not. The "you" they are talking about is a well outlined, eternal, definable entity -- something they say doesn't not exist. That's what they are denying, not consciousness directly.

In mereological nihilism, consciousness is something you have, like you might have a shirt on. It's a property, not an essential ingredient or constituent. It's a has this not an is this.

My dog has a bark, it is not composed of a bark. Barking is added to whatever it means to exist as a dog. If the dog doesn't exist, then a barking dog doesn't exist, but dealing with the barking isn't part of the argument.

You can certainly disagree with this formulation and say that without consciousness, there is no you to talk about, but under mereological nihilism, that's a separate issue.

By the way, there's a good reason to avoid addressing consciousness directly. To do so, you'd have to pin down a great many other issues about consciousness that are still actively argued about. The whole thrust of mereological nihilism would get lost (as it has in this thread) in a tangential discussion about consciousness. Keeping that out allows them to focus on the main point.

The Norseman · 6th January 2013, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by levi

This is pretty much my last question on the subject.

Can someone answer?

Originally Posted by levi

I assume consiousness is denied if there is nothing immaterial according to mereological nihilism? This is correct?

Originally Posted by levi

Are you implying that I must exist to write my post?
Can someone answer my previous post from the perceptive of mereological nihilism?

Originally Posted by levi

I assume from the philosophers response that mereological nihilism implies I don't exist, can someone comfirm this?

Originally Posted by levi

I will ask one more time. Can someone answer simply?

Originally Posted by levi

Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

How can consiousness not be a physical process?

Seriously.

After more than 900 posts, it's time for you to go on to some other concept, one that isn't troubling you quite as much. No one here is apparently able to fully satisfy you regarding your constant repetitive questioning.

Take a year off from this question and come back later with a fresh perspective. In the meantime, maybe someone in real life will have been able to answer to your satisfaction.

levi · 6th January 2013, 03:32 PM

Consciousness means pink.

Fairies equal my physical body.

Originally Posted by marplots

The "you" that mereological nihilism is denying would be the same you, conscious or not. The "you" they are talking about is a well outlined, eternal, definable entity -- something they say doesn't not exist. That's what they are denying, not consciousness directly.

It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles.

Bark also means consciousness and dog means my physical body.

If any of this incorrect than correct me.

Do you believe in a soul?

Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience.

Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?

levi · 6th January 2013, 03:52 PM

I edited it now it makes more sense. Someone can delete this post.

Dancing David · 7th January 2013, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things.

Which is just a POV that defies appearances.

Quote:

But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

Ask them.

Quote:

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process.

How can consiousness not be a physical process? Unless someone discovers a soul even though it is incredibly unlikely.

Dancing David · 7th January 2013, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by levi

Consciousness means pink.

Fairies equal my physical body.

It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles.

Which is silly because it ignores a whole bunch of apparent physics.

While one can model a single electron theory, it is easier to say there are a bunch of electrons.

The oxygen atoms around proxima centauri are NOT the oxygen atoms in my body. the two are NOT equivalent. They are translocated in space and time and have different contingent histories.

Quote:

Bark also means consciousness and dog means my physical body.

If any of this incorrect than correct me.

Do you believe in a soul?

Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience.

Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?

I suggest you read this thread
Does the traditional atheistic worldview contradict materialism?

It covers much of the same ground and may help you.

marplots · 7th January 2013, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by levi

It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles.

Exactly. It really doesn't deal with the soul either. You can't just wedge in things and expect to get a meaningful answer.

Quote:

Do you believe in a soul?

Not in the religious sense of the word. I usually translate the word to mean a combination of personality, emotional bent and biases -- a "secular soul" if you like.

Quote:

Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience.

But you are getting smarter. I, on the other hand, am not getting any more patient. This gives you the advantage.

Quote:

Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?

Well, you sleep right? Sometimes a deep and dreamless sleep where you are unconscious? Is there still a "you" there or not?
(I don't think there's a sure and certain answer to this, but there are different opinions.)

6th January 2013, 01:56 PM	#921
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Originally Posted by marplots Yes, that is what it implies. One more thing I wanted to add when I say "I exist" I mean , "my consiousness" does not exist according to mereological nihilism. If this doesn't change marplots response than ignore it.
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 02:03 PM.

6th January 2013, 02:06 PM	#922
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by levi One more thing I wanted to add when I say "I exist" I mean , "my consiousness" does not exist according to mereological nihilism. If this doesn't change dafydd response than ignore it. Your consciousness may or may not exist. If it does, it can't be said to be attached to anything reliably called "you." Consciousness isn't a special property in mereological nihilism, it's just one of thousands of things we could talk about, like mass or pinkness or "smells like a fish." None of that matters one wit and isn't part of the concept. The concepts are only about the existence of physical things.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

6th January 2013, 02:33 PM	#923
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary? So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness? What does this mean? "reliably called "you."" How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness? I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process. How can consiousness not be a physical process? Unless someone discovers a soul even though it is incredibly unlikely.
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 02:50 PM.

6th January 2013, 02:42 PM	#924
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	double post
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

6th January 2013, 02:54 PM	#925
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by levi I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary? So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness? What does this mean? "reliably called "you."" How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness? I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process. Levi, Let me try it from a different direction. Suppose I deny that faeries exist. I lay out my reasons and so forth. Your question about consciousness would then be something like, "Well, what about pink faeries?" If I deny all faeries, then I've denied pink faeries as well. But then you shift to something like, "Well, aren't you saying 'pink' doesn't exist then?" No, not at all. Pink may very well exist, just not attached to anything reasonably identified as faeries. Perhaps the mistake comes in because you have tied in the notion of consciousness with your sense of self and existing. The "you" that mereological nihilism is denying would be the same you, conscious or not. The "you" they are talking about is a well outlined, eternal, definable entity -- something they say doesn't not exist. That's what they are denying, not consciousness directly. In mereological nihilism, consciousness is something you have, like you might have a shirt on. It's a property, not an essential ingredient or constituent. It's a has this not an is this. My dog has a bark, it is not composed of a bark. Barking is added to whatever it means to exist as a dog. If the dog doesn't exist, then a barking dog doesn't exist, but dealing with the barking isn't part of the argument. You can certainly disagree with this formulation and say that without consciousness, there is no you to talk about, but under mereological nihilism, that's a separate issue. By the way, there's a good reason to avoid addressing consciousness directly. To do so, you'd have to pin down a great many other issues about consciousness that are still actively argued about. The whole thrust of mereological nihilism would get lost (as it has in this thread) in a tangential discussion about consciousness. Keeping that out allows them to focus on the main point.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Last edited by marplots; 6th January 2013 at 02:58 PM.

6th January 2013, 03:06 PM	#926
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,242	Originally Posted by levi This is pretty much my last question on the subject. Can someone answer? Originally Posted by levi I assume consiousness is denied if there is nothing immaterial according to mereological nihilism? This is correct? Originally Posted by levi Are you implying that I must exist to write my post? Can someone answer my previous post from the perceptive of mereological nihilism? Originally Posted by levi I assume from the philosophers response that mereological nihilism implies I don't exist, can someone comfirm this? Originally Posted by levi I will ask one more time. Can someone answer simply? Originally Posted by levi Is this a correct summary? So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness? What does this mean? "reliably called "you."" How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness? How can consiousness not be a physical process? Seriously. After more than 900 posts, it's time for you to go on to some other concept, one that isn't troubling you quite as much. No one here is apparently able to fully satisfy you regarding your constant repetitive questioning. Take a year off from this question and come back later with a fresh perspective. In the meantime, maybe someone in real life will have been able to answer to your satisfaction.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

6th January 2013, 03:32 PM	#927
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Consciousness means pink. Fairies equal my physical body. Originally Posted by marplots The "you" that mereological nihilism is denying would be the same you, conscious or not. The "you" they are talking about is a well outlined, eternal, definable entity -- something they say doesn't not exist. That's what they are denying, not consciousness directly. It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles. Bark also means consciousness and dog means my physical body. If any of this incorrect than correct me. Do you believe in a soul? Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience. Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 04:02 PM.

6th January 2013, 03:52 PM	#928
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I edited it now it makes more sense. Someone can delete this post.
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 04:05 PM.

7th January 2013, 04:45 AM	#929
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by levi I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. Which is just a POV that defies appearances. Quote: But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary? So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness? Ask them. Quote: What does this mean? "reliably called "you."" How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness? I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process. How can consiousness not be a physical process? Unless someone discovers a soul even though it is incredibly unlikely.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

7th January 2013, 04:54 AM	#930
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by levi Consciousness means pink. Fairies equal my physical body. It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles. Which is silly because it ignores a whole bunch of apparent physics. While one can model a single electron theory, it is easier to say there are a bunch of electrons. The oxygen atoms around proxima centauri are NOT the oxygen atoms in my body. the two are NOT equivalent. They are translocated in space and time and have different contingent histories. Quote: Bark also means consciousness and dog means my physical body. If any of this incorrect than correct me. Do you believe in a soul? Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience. Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness? I suggest you read this thread Does the traditional atheistic worldview contradict materialism? It covers much of the same ground and may help you.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

7th January 2013, 04:57 AM	#931
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by levi It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles. Exactly. It really doesn't deal with the soul either. You can't just wedge in things and expect to get a meaningful answer. Quote: Do you believe in a soul? Not in the religious sense of the word. I usually translate the word to mean a combination of personality, emotional bent and biases -- a "secular soul" if you like. Quote: Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience. But you are getting smarter. I, on the other hand, am not getting any more patient. This gives you the advantage. Quote: Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness? Well, you sleep right? Sometimes a deep and dreamless sleep where you are unconscious? Is there still a "you" there or not? (I don't think there's a sure and certain answer to this, but there are different opinions.)
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420