You are.

I agree. Consider an original idea from 1000 years ago that someone wrote down and nobody else has read before. You find the paper and read the words and then have the idea. Now, while thinking of the idea your brain is firing nuerons and atomic interactions are causing (or 'allowing') the idea. But I would say that the idea, itself, is not a spatial arrangement of atoms, would you? and the words on the page (a spatial arrangement of atoms) allow for the idea to exist. Therefore, a spatial arrangement of atoms has allowed for something other than a spatial event.As a side thought...what about when the idea is dormant? Does the idea still exist? It has the potential to exist but it isn't existing...weird. why can't I? Because it doesn't understand itself, you said?I was asking you to explain to me why written language is not allowing for something other than a spatial event. Is your reply that because the language doesn't understand itself and it takes us to interpret it? What about the idea....

Do you still want to discuss the topic in the opening post, #1?I replied to that in Message 32 and you haven't replied.I'd be able to respond your latest post better if you responded to my first one first.

It was a rhetorical question meant to be an example of the kind of question you asked in the OP. I disagree. What about dark matter? Also, I’d consider consciousness to be a thing that happens in the natural world that is not naturally explainable by physical interactions. But, then again, you said . I disagree. Why do you think that consciousness doesn’t happen in the physical world? <---- said .

quote:

---

Consciousness is not something which happens in the physical world though it is what is used to percieve the physical world. It is probably difficult for you to imagine that consciousness is not within the physical world because with your consciosuness you are experiencing the physical world. But consciousness is not physical.

---

You never said why you think that way, you just reasserted your claim. The above quote is a logical fallacy. Maybe you can explain it better. To me it seems obvious that consciousness happens in the physical world so I’ll need to be convinced that it doesn’t to discuss it with you. You don’t have to be very convincing, but at least one reason is required. You can’t just assert it and then reassert it and expect me to know what you mean. This is incorrect. Perception is carried out by the senses (seeing, hearing, etc.). Consciousness is applied to your perceptions, it analyzes the data that is collected while perceiving but it doesn’t actually do any of the perceiving. I disagree. We can’t even predict the weather. Being physical doesn’t make something predictable.

I can accept that. Well now you’ve changed what you said typed.You said that consciousness was ”used to perceive’, now you are saying that it ”experiences the perception’, which is what I said. So, I wasn’t wrong. The senses do the perceiving, the consciousness analyzes the perceptions. Well that’s insulting. Maybe it is not my ability to grasp, but your ability to explain, that is the problem. I’m not grasping your concept of consciousness and I’m not a robot . . Of course. Its blatantly obvious. Calling something ridiculous doesn’t make it not true. Experiences are physical, especially the physical ones like touching something. Why do you think that experience itself is not physical? Please provide a reason other than it is ridiculous so we can continue the discussion. I can accept that concepts are not physical. lol. I find that amusing. Well that clarification could have been provided earlier. But not for everything, not even every physical thing. Some of the movements of particles are called random walks, they are not predictable and you have to use probability to have any useful information about the particle’s movement. There is no “direct mathematical relationship” for where the particle is now and where it will be a second from now.The claim of yours is incorrect: Not everything natural and physical is predictable.

I guess so, i mean, sure, its possible.

I think the concept needs some constructive criticism.

Well you said the concept isn't physical and I'm saying that because your brain, a physical thing, came up with it then it is possible for a non-physical thing to come from a physical thing. Well, it is pretty amazing isn't it?