:up: It seems to me that nothing is an incoherent concept. At the very least "nothing" contains information about itself as nothingness, so its not nothing. Of course such a situation can not exist as information is always attached to something.
I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better.
Nothing, as it is generally used, often has a context in which it can be contrasted to and therefore defined. Ex: I spent all my life's savings on cheap beer and and even cheaper women, and now I have nothing! Or, I got drunk and forgot to renew my insurance policy and also left the oven on, my house was destroyed and I now have nothing! Etc.
Nothing could exist in theory. Perhaps in a vacuum devoid of all gases. Though, if you insist darkness being the absent of light is in fact something, perhaps nothing is unobtainable. How encouraging. :)
Helder AfonsoJanuary 09, 2021 at 08:06#4862940 likes
Nothing is a very clear concept. Is the lack of something. What you describe is not nothing. If it has information, it has something, so it is something and, therefore, is not nothing. Nothing is not real and/or material, it is a mathematical concept. Also commonly mistaken for what it is not knowned.
I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better.
I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality. The post is a kind of syllogism. with the conclusion left open to emphasize the way that thought "Fills in the gaps" in our symbolic presentations; thought is more than just information. Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:04#4863990 likes
I have problems with cogito ergo sum; both the means by which Descartes arrives at this conclusion, and its implications. Firstly, its radical skepticism that suffers from Occam's Razor. To doubt that the external world, and even his physical body exist, because perhaps, a demon may be deceiving him is unreasonable, not least because - it implies a much more complex explanation than the apparent reality; and as Occam asserts, "the simplest adequate explanation is the best."
Having posited unreasonable premises, Descartes cannot proceed toward a reasonable conclusion. Clearly, Descartes does have a physical body, and the external world does exist, so cogito ergo sum does not follow; or, it invokes the unreasonable conditions of its birth in every moment.
This leads to my second problem; that cogito ergo sum is invoked free of this unreasonable context in support of subjectivist philosophies - as if, in reality, the only thing of which we can be certain is our subjective experience. It seems to me, had Descartes thrust his hand into the fire - rather than a ball of wax, he would have become suddenly and painfully aware of the existence of his physical body and an objective reality; an awareness that would be prior to "cogito" in its undeniable urgency.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 20:44#4864700 likes
To doubt that the external world, and even his physical body exist, because perhaps, a demon may be deceiving him is unreasonable, not least because - it implies a much more complex explanation than the apparent reality;
And yet, today, as computer technology describes, the "brain-in-a-vat" hypothesis (which is what Descartes' deceptive demon amounts to) is more plausible than ever. I think it was just an excellent metaphor symbolizing the type of doubt Descartes wanted to describe.
So I don't think it was an unreasonable premise. I think it was an accurate depiction of a subjective experience, translated into publicity.
I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality
Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling.
I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions..
For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose.
I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions.
For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose
Strictly from the primitive ontological statements I infer/intuit the continuity of consciousness with some kind of historical consciousness that preceded this "phase" and some kind of future consciousness that will follow. Without being too explicit about the nature of that more "expansive" consciousness. Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose.
Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose.
A lineage of consciousness / life? Who can deny it? It has long been the view in Yogic logic, and in biology we are a vehicle for DNA. It dose take some guts though, to step out of the comfort zone of the prevailing dogma and state one's best understanding - I can relate to that.
Reply to Pantagruel Perhaps everything that can be, is. Because there is nothing to stop it. Therefore both nothingness and existence are possible and existence wins out because it is the only other option and there is nothing to stop it from being.
You either knew all along that it didn't come from nothing, or your premise "nothing comes from nothing" is speculative because there exists a known thing whose origin is unknown.
As an example. I can't say "all swans are black" and use it to conclude that some new swan I've never seen before must be black. Simply by virtue of there being a new swan I've never seen before, I've rendered my "all swans..." premise over confident at best.
You cannot say that for all things they do not come from nothing and use it to conclude that some thing whose origin is unknown must therefore not come from nothing. At best you must conclude there exist things whose origin you don't know and as such any conclusion about the origin of "all things..." cannot be properly established.
You either knew all along that it didn't come from nothing, or your premise "nothing comes from nothing" is speculative because there exists a known thing whose origin is unknown.
Actually the final premise was cogito ergo sum. So far from excluding consciousness, it was (is) integral to the argument.
I was referring to your first premise, as I had hoped was made clear by me quoting your first premise.
Well, a premise contains what it contains, so saying that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't refer to consciousness is like say quid pro quo doesn't tell you what is being exchanged.
Ex nihilo nihil fit is intuitively, logically, and scientifically satisfying.
Well, a premise contains what it contains, so saying that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't refer to consciousness is like say quid pro quo doesn't tell you what is being exchanged.
That doesn't make any sense. Quid pro quo isn't about what's being exchanged, so we woudn't expect it to tell us. Ex nihilo nihil fit is about {all the things}, so we'd expect it to tell us about one of the things. Consciousness of one of the things in {all the things}, so any conclusion drawn from {all the things} must include consciousness.
Ex nihilo nihil fit is intuitively, logically, and scientifically satisfying.
Firstly, if something's being intuitively satisfying is a measure of it's adpotion, then why not just introspect about the question at hand and see what conclusion is intuitively satisfying? Why the song and dance going through all these post hoc rationalisations?
Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing?
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 17:38#4894570 likes
Reply to Isaac https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/dark-energy-the-energy-of-nothing
Quid pro quo isn't about what's being exchanged, so we woudn't expect it to tell us. Ex nihilo nihil fit is about {all the things}, so we'd expect it to tell us about one of the things.
They are both generalizations. This, that. Something, nothing. Your categorization seems spurious to me Isaac.
Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing?
If something comes from nothing you have to begin with nothing. And for nothing to become something there must be an impulse within nothing. But nothing with potency or an internal catalyst or impulse, is not nothing because there is already something in it.
Nothing comes from nothing.
Nothing becomes nothing.
Consciousness is not nothing (cogito ergo sum).
Ergo...
Ergo...consciousness enjoys eternal existence but the catch is only in a backward sense and not forward in time. Things can go out of existence. something can become nothing even though nothing can't become something.
My two cents worth.
DoppyTheElvJanuary 16, 2021 at 20:23#4895140 likes
Reply to TheMadFool
But can nothing even be? Consciousness can become something less complex perhaps.
But becoming nothing seems to ring my intuition alarm.
They are both generalizations. This, that. Something, nothing.
So you're saying that the properties of a generalised set can be used to infer the properties of any member of that set simply by virtue of its membership? Seems rather a weak argument to me. If I were to say "this elephant has a trunk because elephants generally have trunks" I think you'd be hesitant to agree.
So why is it any different when you say "this thing (consciousness) came from something because things generally come from something"?
So you're saying that the properties of a generalised set can be used to infer the properties of any member of that set simply by virtue of its membership?
No, I never made that claim anywhere. I said that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't explicitly refer to consciousness, nor should it, that isn't it's role in the syllogism. I'm not going to repeat myself a fourth time. If you don't like the structure of the argument that's fine. Nevertheless, that is my argument, and it is the basic form of a syllogism, general premise, specific premise.
Anything else is illogical. Nothingness cannot have anything in it. Nothingness is not even an 'it'. If there is something happening in nothingness, there is something, not nothingness. Nothingness cannot have potency because potency is something.
god must be atheistJanuary 17, 2021 at 12:49#4897410 likes
1. That which does not exist is nothing
2. The past does not exist
3. All causes occur in the past when measured in time local to their present effect
4. Therefore all causes are nothing
5. Therefore everything comes from nothing.
Ex nihilo omnia fit
PossibilityJanuary 18, 2021 at 05:15#4900430 likes
Anything else is illogical. Nothingness cannot have anything in it. Nothingness is not even an 'it'. If there is something happening in nothingness, there is something, not nothingness. Nothingness cannot have potency because potency is something.
How do you know that the potency of nothing is something?
" Nothing" stays the same. It is unchanging and dose not evolve.
But the universe and all of its components are constantly changing and evolving. :chin:
This is not true. The past is a previous state of the present. When a physical object moves through space, its current position and trajectory can be plotted as a vector, which includes its motion through time. It is only our limited perspective which restricts us to perceiving current states of affairs in a temporally restricted fashion. Think of the intellect as an organ for perceiving "temporal depth."
1. That which does not exist is nothing
2. The past does not exist
3. All causes occur in the past when measured in time local to their present effect
4. Therefore all causes are nothing
5. Therefore everything comes from nothing.
There is a problem with your use of the verb tenses that suggest too much logic. You look at the present giving too much strength to statics, and too little to historical dynamics. Let me explain.
The past does not exist. NOW. But it did exist.
So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.
Therefore not all causes are nothing.
And the conclusion is wrong, since the assumptions are invalid.
Reply to Garth
Naturally, the past is not contemporaneous with the present. The past did exist, when it was the present. And it didn't "stop existing," it became the present. As GMBA rightly points out. It was almost a nice bit of sophistry though.
My point was to concoct something less sophistical than what you posted. And I think I succeeded. Honestly your OP transcends sophistry to the depths of the shitpost.
The past does not exist. NOW. But it did exist.
...
So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.
So the past is nothing, and all effects are caused by nothing. Or alternatively, we remember the past because the past is part of the present, and what is contained in the past is only our memory of events which don't exist anymore.
My point was to concoct something less sophistical than what you posted. And I think I succeeded. Honestly your OP transcends sophistry to the depths of the shitpost.
That's not very polite. I utilized two of the most venerable philosophical dictums as the major and minor premises of a syllogism. So, the content was not shit, neither was the structure. It was concise and unambiguous. If you lack the philosophical depth to intuit the connection maybe you should just read more, and post less until you have.
god must be atheistJanuary 22, 2021 at 04:59#4914390 likes
The past does not exist. NOW. But it did exist.
...
So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.
— god must be atheist
So the past is nothing, and all effects are caused by nothing. Or alternatively, we remember the past because the past is part of the present, and what is contained in the past is only our memory of events which don't exist anymore.
You just keep repeating yourself, as if you couldn't get out of the groove you feel comfortable in. There is no progression here; I refute you, you repeat what i had just refuted.
The hard problem of philosophy. How to gift someone with the ability to become flexible and accept things that are not conducive with their theories, even if it were conducive to accept them in determining the truth.
I have to think of my health. I have to think of my blood pressure. I can't lose my temper, because my doctors told me that would be the last time I ever wrote anything philosophical.
Reply to Pantagruel
Your post lends itself to two interpretations. The first, "naive" interpretation:
lets start by converting your premises:
"Consciousness is not nothing" --> "Consciousness is something"
"Nothing comes from nothing" --> already an affirmative premise
"Nothing becomes nothing" --> already an affirmative premise
Conclusion does not follow because even though nothing comes from and becomes nothing, consciousness is something and so there is no shared middle term with either pair of premises.
The second, "sophisticated" interpretation:
"Consciousness is not nothing" --> "Consciousness is something"
"Nothing comes from nothing" --> "something comes from something"
"Nothing becomes nothing" --> "something becomes something"
Conclusion does not follow because "something" is an equivocal term.
The third, "intended" interpretation:
"Consciousness is not nothing" --> "Consciousness is something"
"Nothing comes from nothing" --> "everything comes from something"
"Nothing becomes nothing" --> "everything becomes something"
Conclusion follows. Consciousness comes from and becomes something. However, we must equivocate as to the meaning of nothing. The first nothing has a grammatical function -- it means "It is never the case that something" while the second nothing means simply what does not exist.
But as Isaac points out, the second and third premises, in order to be true, must already assume consciousness as coming from and becoming something.
I will assume that the Parmenidean dictum you quoted is not interpreted in the Aristotelian sense. I don't see how that ancient doctrine is compatible with quantum events or the Big Bang.
So the real question is not with regard to consciousness but about universal causality on the practical scale of human events. Some very early attacks on causality come from Pyrronian Skepticism. I've tried to adapt one to the discussion here.
The argument I had in mind is this one:
Sextus Empiricus:Furthermore, a cause produces an effect either at a time when it already exists and exists as a cause, or when it is not a cause. Now it certainly does not do so when it is not a cause; but if it does so when it is a cause, it must have existed and have become a cause beforehand, and then, this done, it must bring about the effect, which is said to be produced by it at a time when it is already a cause. But since the cause is relative, that is, relative to the effect, clearly it cannot, as a cause, exist before the effect; therefore it is not possible for the cause, at the time when it is the cause, to produce that of which it is the cause. And if it cannot produce anything either when it is a cause or when it is not, then it cannot produce anything. Wherefore, it will not be a cause, for apart from producing something a cause cannot be conceived as a cause.
This argument is 99% sophistical. But there is a 1% that matters.
So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.
Both of you seem to be saying that the past does not presently exist, but that it is also not nothing. But supposing I have a box that once contained a stack of papers but is now empty. If I say "there's nothing in the box" you would need to correct me: The history of everything that was ever in that box is still in the box.
Alternatively, the space in that box, the place where those papers were stored, must have existed in some way before the box was manufactured, and after I send the box off to be recycled, and it is broken down into pulp, that space persists in some form.
counterpunchJanuary 24, 2021 at 07:30#4921690 likes
Ex nihilo nihil fit - is logical, but logic is a consequence of the reality that springs into being from the big bang, establishing the existence of time, space, energy, matter, and the logic of that reality, we are fundamentally unable to see beyond.
For example - the double slit experiment shows that photons pass through two slits at the same time. EPR shows quantum particles communicating information, faster than light, over vast distances - without any apparent transfer between them. Quantum tunnelling shows particles passing through solid matter.
Clearly, our logic is local to the slice of reality we inhabit; and consequently, ex nihilo nihil fit - explains precisely nothing about the origin of the universe.
It is the wrong question anyway; a conceit - to project oneself to the ends of the universe, and look back at us, and tell us what is and isn't true. Truth begins at the fingertips - and is built bottom up, by testing hypotheses in relation to the evidence of the senses.
Comments (52)
I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better.
Nothing could exist in theory. Perhaps in a vacuum devoid of all gases. Though, if you insist darkness being the absent of light is in fact something, perhaps nothing is unobtainable. How encouraging. :)
I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality. The post is a kind of syllogism. with the conclusion left open to emphasize the way that thought "Fills in the gaps" in our symbolic presentations; thought is more than just information. Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling.
Having posited unreasonable premises, Descartes cannot proceed toward a reasonable conclusion. Clearly, Descartes does have a physical body, and the external world does exist, so cogito ergo sum does not follow; or, it invokes the unreasonable conditions of its birth in every moment.
This leads to my second problem; that cogito ergo sum is invoked free of this unreasonable context in support of subjectivist philosophies - as if, in reality, the only thing of which we can be certain is our subjective experience. It seems to me, had Descartes thrust his hand into the fire - rather than a ball of wax, he would have become suddenly and painfully aware of the existence of his physical body and an objective reality; an awareness that would be prior to "cogito" in its undeniable urgency.
A lack of anything. Everything lacks something. My dog lacks a tail.
And yet, today, as computer technology describes, the "brain-in-a-vat" hypothesis (which is what Descartes' deceptive demon amounts to) is more plausible than ever. I think it was just an excellent metaphor symbolizing the type of doubt Descartes wanted to describe.
So I don't think it was an unreasonable premise. I think it was an accurate depiction of a subjective experience, translated into publicity.
Well, you would have to nit-pick! :cool:
To be exact, I don't *have* to, I just *want* to.
:rofl:
You have my attention.
I agree totally.
Quoting Pantagruel
I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions..
For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose.
Strictly from the primitive ontological statements I infer/intuit the continuity of consciousness with some kind of historical consciousness that preceded this "phase" and some kind of future consciousness that will follow. Without being too explicit about the nature of that more "expansive" consciousness. Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose.
A lineage of consciousness / life? Who can deny it? It has long been the view in Yogic logic, and in biology we are a vehicle for DNA. It dose take some guts though, to step out of the comfort zone of the prevailing dogma and state one's best understanding - I can relate to that.
Yet...
Quoting Pantagruel
So consciousness must be in the class of things that you took account of to deduce that "Nothing comes from nothing".
If not, then how have you reached your premise despite knowingly excluding some 'things' from your gathering of evidence?
If so, then you already knew the answer beforehand, why the charade of investigation?
What did I exclude?
Consciousness.
You either knew all along that it didn't come from nothing, or your premise "nothing comes from nothing" is speculative because there exists a known thing whose origin is unknown.
As an example. I can't say "all swans are black" and use it to conclude that some new swan I've never seen before must be black. Simply by virtue of there being a new swan I've never seen before, I've rendered my "all swans..." premise over confident at best.
You cannot say that for all things they do not come from nothing and use it to conclude that some thing whose origin is unknown must therefore not come from nothing. At best you must conclude there exist things whose origin you don't know and as such any conclusion about the origin of "all things..." cannot be properly established.
Actually the final premise was cogito ergo sum. So far from excluding consciousness, it was (is) integral to the argument.
I was referring to your first premise, as I had hoped was made clear by me quoting your first premise.
Well, a premise contains what it contains, so saying that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't refer to consciousness is like say quid pro quo doesn't tell you what is being exchanged.
Ex nihilo nihil fit is intuitively, logically, and scientifically satisfying.
That doesn't make any sense. Quid pro quo isn't about what's being exchanged, so we woudn't expect it to tell us. Ex nihilo nihil fit is about {all the things}, so we'd expect it to tell us about one of the things. Consciousness of one of the things in {all the things}, so any conclusion drawn from {all the things} must include consciousness.
Quoting Pantagruel
Firstly, if something's being intuitively satisfying is a measure of it's adpotion, then why not just introspect about the question at hand and see what conclusion is intuitively satisfying? Why the song and dance going through all these post hoc rationalisations?
Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing?
They are both generalizations. This, that. Something, nothing. Your categorization seems spurious to me Isaac.
If something comes from nothing you have to begin with nothing. And for nothing to become something there must be an impulse within nothing. But nothing with potency or an internal catalyst or impulse, is not nothing because there is already something in it.
Ergo...consciousness enjoys eternal existence but the catch is only in a backward sense and not forward in time. Things can go out of existence. something can become nothing even though nothing can't become something.
My two cents worth.
But can nothing even be? Consciousness can become something less complex perhaps.
But becoming nothing seems to ring my intuition alarm.
My grandmother passed away 12 years ago.
So you're saying that the properties of a generalised set can be used to infer the properties of any member of that set simply by virtue of its membership? Seems rather a weak argument to me. If I were to say "this elephant has a trunk because elephants generally have trunks" I think you'd be hesitant to agree.
So why is it any different when you say "this thing (consciousness) came from something because things generally come from something"?
Quoting EnPassant
You know this how?
No, I never made that claim anywhere. I said that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't explicitly refer to consciousness, nor should it, that isn't it's role in the syllogism. I'm not going to repeat myself a fourth time. If you don't like the structure of the argument that's fine. Nevertheless, that is my argument, and it is the basic form of a syllogism, general premise, specific premise.
Anything else is illogical. Nothingness cannot have anything in it. Nothingness is not even an 'it'. If there is something happening in nothingness, there is something, not nothingness. Nothingness cannot have potency because potency is something.
Sometimes it's the lack of lacking something.
Only from a normative perspective.
I miss the lack of lacking something :(
2. The past does not exist
3. All causes occur in the past when measured in time local to their present effect
4. Therefore all causes are nothing
5. Therefore everything comes from nothing.
Ex nihilo omnia fit
How do you know that the potency of nothing is something?
But the universe and all of its components are constantly changing and evolving. :chin:
This is not true. The past is a previous state of the present. When a physical object moves through space, its current position and trajectory can be plotted as a vector, which includes its motion through time. It is only our limited perspective which restricts us to perceiving current states of affairs in a temporally restricted fashion. Think of the intellect as an organ for perceiving "temporal depth."
If I thought that I wouldn't have made the comment.
There is a problem with your use of the verb tenses that suggest too much logic. You look at the present giving too much strength to statics, and too little to historical dynamics. Let me explain.
The past does not exist. NOW. But it did exist.
So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.
Therefore not all causes are nothing.
And the conclusion is wrong, since the assumptions are invalid.
The past exists as a memory in our imagination.
Naturally, the past is not contemporaneous with the present. The past did exist, when it was the present. And it didn't "stop existing," it became the present. As GMBA rightly points out. It was almost a nice bit of sophistry though.
You didn't even make an argument here. You're just assuming your conclusion, which is literally ...
That's why my argument is better than yours.
Quoting Pantagruel
My point was to concoct something less sophistical than what you posted. And I think I succeeded. Honestly your OP transcends sophistry to the depths of the shitpost.
Quoting Pop
Then God exists. Because he exists in the imagination of anyone who believes in God and this has the property of existing.
Quoting god must be atheist
So the past is nothing, and all effects are caused by nothing. Or alternatively, we remember the past because the past is part of the present, and what is contained in the past is only our memory of events which don't exist anymore.
Quoting god must be atheist
Not correct, the conclusion simply doesn't follow if the assumptions are invalid. The conclusion can still be true.
or to put it in your patronizing style...
A wrong argument doesn't PROVE it's conclusion. Thus the conclusion can EITHER be TRUE or FALSE.
That's not very polite. I utilized two of the most venerable philosophical dictums as the major and minor premises of a syllogism. So, the content was not shit, neither was the structure. It was concise and unambiguous. If you lack the philosophical depth to intuit the connection maybe you should just read more, and post less until you have.
You just keep repeating yourself, as if you couldn't get out of the groove you feel comfortable in. There is no progression here; I refute you, you repeat what i had just refuted.
The hard problem of philosophy. How to gift someone with the ability to become flexible and accept things that are not conducive with their theories, even if it were conducive to accept them in determining the truth.
I have to think of my health. I have to think of my blood pressure. I can't lose my temper, because my doctors told me that would be the last time I ever wrote anything philosophical.
You are the one who is just repeating yourself.
Quoting Pantagruel
You have not been polite to me.
Yes. I keep repeating that you are repeating yourself saying that I'm repeating myself.
Your post lends itself to two interpretations. The first, "naive" interpretation:
lets start by converting your premises:
"Consciousness is not nothing" --> "Consciousness is something"
"Nothing comes from nothing" --> already an affirmative premise
"Nothing becomes nothing" --> already an affirmative premise
Conclusion does not follow because even though nothing comes from and becomes nothing, consciousness is something and so there is no shared middle term with either pair of premises.
The second, "sophisticated" interpretation:
"Consciousness is not nothing" --> "Consciousness is something"
"Nothing comes from nothing" --> "something comes from something"
"Nothing becomes nothing" --> "something becomes something"
Conclusion does not follow because "something" is an equivocal term.
The third, "intended" interpretation:
"Consciousness is not nothing" --> "Consciousness is something"
"Nothing comes from nothing" --> "everything comes from something"
"Nothing becomes nothing" --> "everything becomes something"
Conclusion follows. Consciousness comes from and becomes something. However, we must equivocate as to the meaning of nothing. The first nothing has a grammatical function -- it means "It is never the case that something" while the second nothing means simply what does not exist.
But as Isaac points out, the second and third premises, in order to be true, must already assume consciousness as coming from and becoming something.
I will assume that the Parmenidean dictum you quoted is not interpreted in the Aristotelian sense. I don't see how that ancient doctrine is compatible with quantum events or the Big Bang.
So the real question is not with regard to consciousness but about universal causality on the practical scale of human events. Some very early attacks on causality come from Pyrronian Skepticism. I've tried to adapt one to the discussion here.
The argument I had in mind is this one:
This argument is 99% sophistical. But there is a 1% that matters.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting Pantagruel
Both of you seem to be saying that the past does not presently exist, but that it is also not nothing. But supposing I have a box that once contained a stack of papers but is now empty. If I say "there's nothing in the box" you would need to correct me: The history of everything that was ever in that box is still in the box.
Alternatively, the space in that box, the place where those papers were stored, must have existed in some way before the box was manufactured, and after I send the box off to be recycled, and it is broken down into pulp, that space persists in some form.
For example - the double slit experiment shows that photons pass through two slits at the same time. EPR shows quantum particles communicating information, faster than light, over vast distances - without any apparent transfer between them. Quantum tunnelling shows particles passing through solid matter.
Clearly, our logic is local to the slice of reality we inhabit; and consequently, ex nihilo nihil fit - explains precisely nothing about the origin of the universe.
It is the wrong question anyway; a conceit - to project oneself to the ends of the universe, and look back at us, and tell us what is and isn't true. Truth begins at the fingertips - and is built bottom up, by testing hypotheses in relation to the evidence of the senses.