"toilet training?". If you think knowing about somebody's toilet training provides insight into how they arrive at their adult perspectives, no wonder you can only conclude that those that disagree with yours are expressing "disgraceful idiotic perspectives". Such a perspective tops the pathetic scale. Rather those that understand the use of the English language. I do not equated fluency with sophistication, merely a decent education. Logic is binary. If a statement is logical, then regardless of its profundity, it is still logical. But I do grant that you wield shallowness with ease. Only if taken out of context, which seems yet another regular disingenuous element of your posting repertoire.
Logic is anything but "binary". There are too many rules that allow inclusions and exclusions within a system of logic.(even in the logic applied to electronics). Your claim would suggest that Logic is also 'black and/or white', 'yes or no', 'true or false'. Which conditions some people on this forum have ridiculed the Theists for being the type persons that seek a 'black or white', 'true or false', 'yes or no' condition to be applied to most conditions in life. Those claims having been made about Theists, would imply that (under your claim of logic being binary) Christians and other Theists are logical.
I disagree. Either something is logical or illogical. PERIOD. Logic (outside of math) cannot prove some proposition as truth, merely that it is logical, but logic can prove that some proposition is not true.
First you say "Either something is logical or illogical", then you say that "Logic outside of math cannot prove some proposition as truth," Then based on that statement, logic cannot be used to prove logic "as truth". That is the equivalent of a Theist saying that the 'Bible' proves the 'Bible' "as truth".
Not quite correct. A person's perception can be altered with chemicals so he hallucinates, but he only loses self-awareness by his consent, implied or express, as people do when they foolishly take "recreational" drugs, the purpose of which is to facilitate the loss of self-awareness. You didn't understand a word I said. I've no doubt you're plenty articulate enough to bamboozle a great many people. I'm just not one of them.
yes, I am aware that many people possess intransient views and are impervious to the effects of facts and logic upon them.
Logic is binary. Logic (outside of math) cannot prove a proposition, merely support its veracity, however logic can readily disprove a proposition. Of course fallacious logic is quite a frequent misuse, as you are no doubt intimately familiar. .
if you're perception and self-awareness are altered, I think most people would define that as an alteration of consciousness. I can entirely take away your consciousness by injecting propafol into your veins. It's nothing but chemicals.
I love this line of discussion. Now that you have made two positive assertions, it is now time for you to offer PROOF that will substantiate those assertions by compelling my mind to accept those assertions as true. Remember, to disprove something, there must be evidence or argument that are positive. Negatives cannot be a proof of anything. Ya know... you cannot prove a negative.
What you're missing is that the first can be altered without degrading the second. And you'd know I wasn't self-aware because...?
yes, and I can alter both your perception and your self-awareness with chemicals. because you'd report losing awareness and then regaining it.
You can give this answer... ...or you can give this one... ...but you can't give both without contradicting yourself. Not nearly good enough, obviously, given that I can lose awareness of a great many things without losing self-awareness.
then i guess i dont understand what you mean by "self awareness." If a person is put into a coma, whereby there is no brain activity, no dreams, no nothing - does he continue to have self-awareness?
I suppose the real problem is what is meant by "self" when applying the term "awareness". Does 'self' imply a consciousness of the physical body alone, or does 'self' imply a deeper understanding that would include the mental processes as well as the physical? As seen in the following definitions, the term 'self' can have meaning reflecting upon the physical body as well as the mental or spiritual body. www.tfd.com/self Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 "self (sɛlf) n, pl selves (sɛlvz) 1. the distinct individuality or identity of a person or thing 2. a person's usual or typical bodily make-up or personal characteristics: she looked her old self again. 3. good self good selves a polite way of referring to or addressing a person (or persons), used following your, his, her, or their 4. one's own welfare or interests: he only thinks of self. 5. (Philosophy) an individual's consciousness of his own identity or being 6. (Philosophy) the self philosophy that which is essential to an individual, esp the mind or soul in Cartesian metaphysics; the ego 7. (Breeds) a bird, animal, etc, that is a single colour throughout, esp a self-coloured pigeon pron"
Is something unclear about the definition in the OP? Does self-awareness count as nothing? Or are dreams supposed to count as self-awareness? Why wouldn't he?
Having been down this route before, I am well aware that your mind cannot be "compelled" to change. A fact that you continually use to dismiss uncomfortable fact. Proof that logic is binary? Perhaps I should start with proving the condition of pregnancy is binary. Proof that logic can disprove a proposition? I suppose I could offer up an non-mathematical explanation as to why alibis and time lines illuminate suspects. I am always amused when you insist that something can only be true if you are "compelled" to believe. Considering your belief system as you have articulated it, it seems "compelling your brain" is not a function of logic and knowledge, but of your entrenched faith and emotional comfort.
Is that really the best that you can conjure from that mind of yours that is trapped in a box of materialism? I was really hoping for something more intellectual than your opinion. Oh well, I guess I set my hopes too high when dealing with you.
I can't seem to compel myself to set my hopes low enough when dealing with you, so your response comes as absolutely no surprise.
Non sequitur, seeing people can live for extended periods, and even permanently, in a state that is utterly devoid of self-awareness. You certainly wouldn't hear it from the scientific community, which is way too heavily invested in the idea that humans are new and improved monkeys even to consider the idea. Maybe you're asleep all the time. Of course. That's not a reasonable inference from what I said, however true it may be.
Given the way that you've contrasted your self-awareness to "many people", it seems to me that you haven't really gotten to the point where you see yourself as a stand-alone individual quite apart from "many people". I'm going to guess that you're in you mid 30s.
This is not interesting. If you were to take issue with any assertion I've made on its own merits, that might get interesting.
I couldn't agree more with your observations; however, I made them all on my own over twenty years ago. My point is that your observations mark a milestone in one's self-awareness. You come to a point many men come to in their mid thirties.
