Does Jesus have two consciousnesses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The divine nature or God doesn’t have qualia because he doesn’t have a body. It is simple as that. You are free to disagree. But then you have to define qualia as something completely different than what it is. So Jesus can not have 2 sources of qualia using the definition of qualia that everyone agrees on.

When we are apart from the body we can not have experience of qualia or sensory perception. But even then we are not like God who exists in a higher dimension outside of time and space. We would still be limited creatures of limited intellect. Apparently we are also aware of things going on around us. For instance the saints in heaven can ‘hear’ our prayers.
 
Last edited:
FrDavid96 said:
Well then, in that case, just go through everything I wrote and replace the word “qualia” with my new word “qualiation” (plural “qualiatia” because a simple s would be too pedestrian) and all will be good.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of qualiation? I hope you are joking.
 
Last edited:
fisherman_carl said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
Well then, in that case, just go through everything I wrote and replace the word “qualia” with my new word “qualiation” (plural “qualiatia” because a simple s would be too pedestrian) and all will be good.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of qualiation?
Click to expand...
I haven’t quite decided that part yet.
 
fisherman_carl said:
Through his divine nature and his human nature.
Click to expand...
You said he “cannot have” 2 sources of qualia. Then you say through his divine nature and his human nature.

Now you’re confusing me as to what you mean at all.

The 2 statements seem to contradict each other.
 
Oh great. Only God knows what the OP’s definition of qualia is and you can’t define your terms. It’s time to quit for now. LOL.
 
God has qualia because he has mind, you are denying God has mind, you put forth heresy. Qualia is beyond body.
 
Last edited:
It’s time for us all to share a metaphorical beer and quit for tonight. LOL.
 
fisherman_carl said:
Oh great. Only God knows what the OP’s definition of qualia is and you can’t define your terms. It’s time to quit for now. LOL.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was joking on that last post.

Seriously, my understanding of qualia would be summarized as “mode” or “method” of perceiving that is unique to each individual. So, not just the mechanics of “seeing” but seeing through my own eyes, or hearing through my own ears, or appreciating a piece of literature in-light of my own experiences.
 
That would be jumping to conclusions. Your logic makes as much sense as me saying because you assert God has ‘qualia’ therefore you assert he has a body that has sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. Therefore you assert God has a body. Therefore you put forth heresy. Of course I don’t actually think this. But it is similar logic that you just put forth.
 
fisherman_carl said:
That would be jumping to conclusions. Your logic makes as much sense as me saying because you assert God has ‘qualia’ therefore you assert he has a body that has sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. Therefore you assert God has a body. …
Click to expand...
I disagree.

I would say that when speaking about God we can say that He perceives even though He does not have a body. I cannot fathom any other way, other than to say that God perceives.

Again, a simple example, but one that still works. We can say that God hears our prayers even though He does not have ears. The absence of physical ears does not exclude Him perceiving that we are praying; nor does the fact that He has knowledge of the prayers exclude that He perceives them.

Yes, a being must have senses in order to have sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. However, when speaking about God we know that He can still perceive things without a body.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
… By denying that God has qualia, which is self, you deny he has mind. …
Click to expand...
Hold on here! I thought that you just explained to me that qualia is “not self” but is instead an experience of the “other.”

Which is it?
 
Qualia is self in the sense of expereince or perception, I don’t mean it in the sense of hypostasis or prosopon.
 
Last edited:
thephilosopher6 said:
Qualia is self in the sense of expereince or perception, I don’t mean it in the sense of hypostasis or prosopon.
Click to expand...
I think what you mean to say here is not that qualia IS self but that it is an act-of-the-self. Yes or no?
 
Yes, those are much better words.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, by asking this I might be creating more work… but was the answer to the original question even given in this thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top