I think therefore I am only means that you cannot doubt your own existence
You CANNOT DRAW A SECOND CONCLUSION FROM THIS! You cannot ASSUME consciousness is immaterial from this. You cannot assume:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial.
"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to the conclusion that consciousness immaterial... the definitions of immaterial and material lead me to the conclusion that consciousness is immaterial...
The reason is because, as YOU HAVE SAID, “it can take me no further than that.”
So you’re not going to take it further than that are you?
Oh, I guess you will contradict yourself again.
"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to conclude that consciousness is immaterial, it only leads me to conclude that consciousness exists. So I have something which I know exists, I cannot doubt that it exists, and it is called "consciousness." Now I can ask questions about this "consciousness". Does it fit the definition of a material object? Does it fit the definition of being immaterial? Well, the word "Mind" is in the very definition
of "immaterial". This "consciousness," which I know exists, fits the definition of immaterial 100%, and is even used as an example of the exact opposite of something which fits the definition of a material object. Therefore, when searching for a label which best describes the nature of this "consciousness," which I know exists, I have chosen the label, "immaterial." because it fits the definition 100%. ( not because I think therefore I am)
It is not "i think therefore I am" which has lead me to conclude that consciousness is immaterial, "i think therefore I am" has only lead me to conclude that consciousness definitely exists, it is the definition of immaterial and material which has lead me to conclude that consciousness can best be described as immaterial, rather than material.
For you to insist that I am using "i think therefore I am" to conclude that consciousness is immaterial is a false accusation. But it's okay, I'm used to it at this point.
Look, part two is unproven, it’s where we are trying to “go from here” but only if you first accept that your belief is not just to be assumed.
You have to accept that you will have to prove your part just as I will have to prove my part. You do not get to insert your belief as the default position.
Consciousness has no mass, no definite location, is incorporeal, unmeasurable, and occupies no space; therefore consciousness fits the definition of immaterial and does not fit the definition of material. Do you disagree?
First, YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THIS!
Second, why would I bother with any further discussion if you just wanted to assume your belief is self evident and that you don’t have to bother with the whole nasty business of having to prove what you believe?
So, we cannot proceed passed step one if you do not understand this.
From the beginning:
1) I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)
We BOTH agree this is an assumption and we BOTH agree that:
“"I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.” Your own words!
You now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?
Berati, let's get something straight before we go any further:I think therefore I am ≠ I think therefore thought is all that there is!!!!!!!You have built a straw-man.
You are misrepresenting my argument. I do not believe that, "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all there is." We will not be able to move forward until you stop strawmanning my argument.
Further, I do not hold to "immaterialism" as you are suggesting. You are assigning me arguments and positions and labels that I do not not actually subscribe to and then arguing against them. If you want to have a discussion with me, at least have the courtesy to let me choose my own position and arguments!
1) I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is better described as "immaterial" than "material" per the definitions of both.
Beyond this: there are a plethora of arguments, assertions, positive claims, bare assumptions, etc. that can be made about the nature of reality I am conscious of. I can evaluate all of these options and come to an informed decision about which is the most likely via evidence and observation in all of it's various forms.
You seem to be suggesting that all of these possibilities are equally as likely
, but this does not follow. Some explain the data better than others, some fit the evidence better than others, some are just outright ridiculous assertions, they are not all equally as likely.
So I disagree.