-
Images
(Zl-eye-f)-nea
-
Posts
1,481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
51
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by (Zl-eye-f)-nea
-
-
-
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1255631883' post='44762']
Except that it aligns with the observable universe. It seems like you're skirting an argument for skepticism but rather than object to reality entirely, you'd rather make claims about it that rely on it being entirely subjective. I've already conceded that nothing can logically be shown to exist, and therefore nothing can logically be assumed to exist the way we believe it does. However, if you're going to insist that objects exist and they are conscious within this closed system that is out universe, you should be willing to approach the problem within the boundaries of that system...being logic and physical law. If not, than why not just discuss objectivism vs, subjectivism or skepticism directly?
[/quote]
Last comment I'm going to make on this point. Im not making claims or anything else like that, Im explaining that your reality isnt as firm as you think it is even if you accept a given system. There may well be a force we feel called gravity but that doesn't mean your explaination of it is correct if it can be explained in another way that is just as valid despite your mass of quantity arguments.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1255631883' post='44762']
If the smallest particle con contain consciousness, a Jit, than what makes the Jit conscious? Again, it seems your making another argument but through an error in semantics attributing it to something else. You'd need to argue in favor of some spiritual or metaphysical origin.
[/quote]
Thats a more interesting argument. Firstly, a Jit containing consciousness doesn't make it necessarily conscious. Secondly, a system is often composed of smaller parts containing cogs that when linked together create a final working model. But....the theory of Jits doesn't actually require me to state what consciousness is or how it got there, it only needs me to be able to know it is in humans and therefore that it must be in all other things in some way. If you don't accept that there is a fundamental building block of life, then the theory of Jits will do nothing for you, but if you do accept that, then it is undeniable unless it appears from nowhere.
Z -
You know there are already two of these guilds yes?
Z- Metal Bunny, Sparrhawk, Liberty4life and 1 other
-
2
-
2
-
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1255627847' post='44750']
You're talking about empiricism. However, to deny that the Earth is round you would have to deny an entire host of other logical presuppositions. Regardless of whether or not I've ever physically seen the Earth from space, I can deduce that it is round through other observations. The horizon is 16 miles from any given point. I can select a landmark on the horizon, walk the 16 miles, and verify that I have not yet fallen off the flat edge of the Earth but rather found another horizon which keeps a constant 16 mile distance. Then of course you have relative motion of stars and planets...
In order to logically conclude that the Earth is not round, you'd need to deny the objectivity of sense perception, at which point you would could simply deny the existence of objects in the first place.
[/quote]
So...a mass of physical evidence, not just once piece, is more persuasive ...yes? I thought you refuted that earlier.
and er...that's not a problem for me - sense perception isn't objective, it's in the term sense *perception*, and it's pretty easy to deny the existence of objects - as Im sure you know, you might not agree with it, but it's entirely possible and arguable.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1255627847' post='44750']
Have you ever heard of PAX6? It's the gene necessary for eye development in each of the 5 phyla of life possessing eyes for sight. It appeared during the Cambrian Explosion, during the time when life jumped from single-celled organisms to every phyla in existence today. None of these single-celled ancestors had eyes. So, the 5 phyla that do each seemingly evolved PAX6 during the same time period, but entirely independantly of one another. PAX6 is a protein chain containing 130 sites...there are 20 amino acids...meaning that you're looking at (20^130)*5 or 6.8x10^169 that nature happened to select the same combination for all 5 phyla. Unless of course the DNA had already existed repressed in single-celled organisms.
[/quote]
Im not quite sure what you are trying to say to me with this to be honest?
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1255627847' post='44750']
There are far more compelling arguments, all based on quantum mechanics. Are you familiar with the Feynman Double Slit Experiment and particle duality? It's considered that many quantum properties change as a function of human perception. I believe in objective reality because Christianity necessitates it.
[/quote]
There's that thing I won't discuss at the dinner table again, sorry.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1255627847' post='44750']
No. You're doing that assumption thing again. There is no "air" in space, but objects there still obey the laws of gravity. Also, some particles move freely through any medium, but near a supermassive blackhole they will not escape its gravitational force.
[/quote]
There is no asumption in that. Did you read what I defined as air? That emptyness around us. Space still has that, and space would still work under my theory. Your version of Gravity can be explained in another way and still be exactly the same, thats what Im saying, but I guess I can't explain it in a way that you will hear me and not just say im making assumptions. Your version of Gravity is just as assumptive as mine.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1255627847' post='44750']
From a neurological perspective, I'd assume the system has to be of a certain complexity before it's considered conscious. Really, this question is a good one for you to answer as well. For instance, in a single hydrogen atom, there are only so many parts that could contain consciousness...so where do you believe it begins and where do you believe it comes from?
[/quote]
I've answered that in every single post I've given you already...everything contains consciousness. Everything.
Z -
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
Have I won this contest yet?
[/quote]
Not for me...kafuuka persuaded me more...but then kafuuka was talking about the other question lol. You certainly win on quantity (haha...get it? lol im only playing )
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
I must have misunderstood. I believe you're wrong about this as well though. Have you ever heard of Kurt Godel and his [url="http://math.mind-crafts.com/godels_incompleteness_theorems.php"]Incompleteness Theorems[/url]? They basically show that math isn't robust enough to validate itself in any given set of axioms.
[/quote]
Its not that its the most logical, nor the best, nor irrefutable. Its that the human mind accepts an argument of quantity as good enough. You have seen 2 + 2 = 4 enough times now that you blindly accept it for example.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
I've not heard anything of plant consciousness. I thought it was a logical assumption that an intelligent species of alien life would be familiar with the use and production of tools. Unless you'd like to add to your (already ridiculous) hypothetical that the aliens can teleport themselves at will and move objects telekinetically, they would have already been in need of some type of craft to be viewing Earth and a digging tool to be unearthing objects in the first place.
[/quote]
I fail to see how it is ridiculous in the slightest. It is totally plausible as far as I am concerned. You assume things because you are thinking in the human world where humans need crafts to get places and things in order to achieve what they want. My hypothetical aliens could do whatever they want. It's not about what aliens can and cannot do its about what they induce from the physical evidence they find.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
I appreciate what you're trying to consider here. It's very interesting and I think of myself as an open-minded individual, but by removing logic you've removed the language necessary to hold a debate, so it's not that there isn't anything left to discuss...there literally is no way for us to discuss it.
[/quote]
There are different kinds of logic. For example, you have suggested that it is logical that aliens use tools, you also suggested it is logical to say the earth is round. Your logic of the first comes from your personal experiece of what you consider to be conscious self-thinking beings. Your second comes from sheer quantity, not because you have even seen the earth from space yourself. It is a certain kind of logic, that works within a certains sphere but which is very restricted. For me it is entirely possible that objects hold consciousness if humans do, in fact I refute that it isnt possible or even likely! If all things come from one fundamental and then from that smallest of things all things become what they are, then all things must contain consciousness for anything to contain consciousness, unless such a consciousness lays dormant without a required chemical stimulous which pings it out of thin air(which is what you would be saying if you go down your neuroscience route)and even then they would have at least the capacity for it. Whether or not they are controlling us is another question which can only be answered once you decide whether you consider it even possible for them to contain any form of consciousness.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
As you point out, without some kind of logical framework literally anything falls within the realm of possibility. Perhaps nothing is conscious. Perhaps my consciousness is all that exists and everything I experience takes place within my mind. I could be looking out a barred window and typing into a pillow while my mind facilitates my false perception of reality.
[/quote]
What makes you so sure there is a fixed reality? You could see green when i see red and we would both call it red (im sure you know that one, dont mean to teach you how to suck eggs). Now would that mean my perception was false or reality shifts?
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
I feel that the assertion you're making necessitates that we be entirely stripped of our conscious will. You're trying to say that we build roads out of rebar, concrete, and tar because those items desire for us to do so and not because it's practical for human usage. Why don't we construct roadways out of sticks of wood, nougat, and tree sap? What if those objects or elements desired to become a road? There's just too many assumptions or "logical leaps" being made to justify that objects have any capacity to influence human consciousness.
[/quote]
It isn't mutually exclusive.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
Well, I've not tried to fly yet today, but the last time I recall gravity stopping me.
[/quote]
So your choices are pre-determined too it seems, just like the atoms then. It isn't mutually exclusive to say you sat on the chair AND that you had to. In fact, if you want logic, then logically under your assertions all of our actions are pre-determined by forces.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255616125' post='44739']
Are you talking about the origin or cause of physical law? According to neurologists, the chemical reactions taking place in the brain are governed by the same (objective) forces that dictate all others.
[/quote]
I don't think you can quantify origin. One can only say "when i do this, that happens" and induce something from that. What I'm saying is that neuroscience is all about the vending machine theory of consciousness. Pop the coin in and you get a mars bar when you have this code. Use this code and you get a twix. So - pop in some seratonin and you get this reaction, pop in another chemical and you get another - such went the development of anti-depressants, but as is shown on a daily basis, the induction doesn't show us all of the effects nor why those effects occur other than the witnessing of the physical and the induction of this being the cause of that because that happens when we do this. It also doesn't show us why sometimes even though we have all the things we tested with we get an entirely different reaction - ie anti-depressants not having any reaction at all for some even though all the puzzle pieces are in place for the correct reaction to take place, or why the placebo effect works or...various other things. We try to give explainations for things we don;t really understand. We give a name to gravity, the force that holds us down, but wouldn't it also be (lets say logically for your sake) possible that something in what we call air (but by air i only mean that emptiness around us) is so dense it keeps us all held down instead?
This is kind of not the point though...the point is, if we humans have consciousness, and there is a fundamental building block for all things, then all things must contain consciousness or the capacity for it unless it pops up out of thin air. I assume you only attribute any sort of consciousness to organic matter, but how low are you willing to go down the chain before you cut off and say something isn't conscious now?
Z -
-
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
I maintain that it is broken. As you had said, it can be used to prove or quantify nearly any desired outcome.
[/quote]
I said it proved that quantity is a good enough argument for humans on a scientific basis. It certainly doesnt quantify nearly any desired outcome by any means, nor have I ever suggested so.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
I feel you're making a handful of assumptions here. We unearth locations that show no evidence of human life, but we never attribute the items found there to object consciousness. Certainly these hypothetical aliens would possess similar tools and objects to the ones crafted and used by humans. Why is it logical to assume they would attribute their development to the objects themselves and not to a form of sentient life that is not evidenced?
[/quote]
Why would we? We already assume only organic matter has consciousness and only a tiny fraction of the populous are open minded enough to look at it another way. Its already been scientifically proved that plants have consciousness, but even on that note people won't accept it because it isnt an animal, and thats with the science to back it up, let alone with objects. Why? because they are aliens, you assume they know things you know or think how you think or live how you live. Im not talking logic, logic only takes you so far, i'm talking the realm of viable possibility. Sure you can say well anything is possible then so lets just give up shall we, but its not quite so, im not discussing a cable turning into a snake even though thats a possibility.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
I suppose I don't understand. I had considered that you were suggesting items would impose their will on us in order to be crafted in particular ways. Wouldn't that necessitate that humans possess no consciousness?
[/quote]
Why would that need humans not to have consciousness? The advertising industry does that to us everyday.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
We already know how all of those systems work, and every moment neuroscience comes closer to explaining how human consciousness works. Atoms obey physical law. Unless you are inferring that physical law is conscious...I don't know what you're trying to get at.
[/quote]
It doesn't come closer ar all. It just continues to show more and more causality at deeper and deeper levels. If that is what you call logic for consciousness then we might as well stop right now as I don't agree with that at all and I'm not about to either unless you have some amazing nugget of wisdom about it I have never encountered - which you may well have.
If atoms obey physical law then humans do too no?
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
...you're trying to attribute consciousness to phenomenon that can be repeated and studied in a science lab and I don't believe it's logically viable.
[/quote]
I can repeat studies of, and study humans in a science lab, and get the same results over and over similarly. Logic doesn't come into it. If, however, you would like me to write to a logical formula for the ideas, if you think that will help, Im sure I can accomodate you.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
I don't believe so. Why would these objects desire for human admiration? Wouldn't they have their own cultural icons?
[/quote]
So you are telling me that being admired and looked at with awe and wonder on a daily basis isn't appealing enough?
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
More often than not, economics are not dictated by natural disaster. Here's another question. Why don't objects exist on planets that are rich in elements but contain no conscious life?
[/quote]
You assume by objects I mean knives forks kettles etc, possibly my fault for obsessing with examples using tea cups and kettles...I don't...I mean objects...a rock for example.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1255534479' post='44662']
It sounds as though you've studied more neuroscience than I have...they seem to have done a handy job using chemistry.
[/quote]
Chemistry doesn't show how it comes out of nowhere either, it could support a robotic causation theory of the human mind but even then the elements it was composed of would have to contain bits of stuff that would react in a consciousness emitting type of way when given the correct stimulous.
Z -
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
The fact that the scientific method can neither falsify one claim nor validate another makes it false. It's broken. The only difference is that I've abandoned it and seek truth elsewhere while you exploit its flaws. If a method can be used to prove any truth...then the method itself is broken and useless. Again, I'm speaking solely within the context of absolute truths. Obviously science has very practical uses, but in this realm pure logic is far more robust. You can't use science to prove sense perception is objective, pretty much rendering it entirely useless for discussing anything abstract or that isn't empirical.
[/quote]
It does both not neither, and it is quite the opposite of broken. It shows the proof of evolution via an amount of physical evidence (so scientifically). There is no denying objects evolve, in your case you would say they evolve as a direct result of human hands, but they still evolve. The aliens attribute that evolution as a conscious one, you do not, that is the only difference. However the differnce is not one that you can prove either way without defining what precisely consciousness is. The aliens have a scientific proof for the consciousness of objects, a proof that comes from an evolutionary theory. For them, that is proof enough. For you, it isn't, but you still haven't shown me why, because you still haven't defined consciousness. The method isnt used to prove any truth as you say, its used to demonstrate specific ideologies. Im not asking you for absolute truths on this, if I was then I would be asking you to solve an age old conversation, which would be silly to say the least lol.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
I assume it is false because you can't logically support that it isn't. You would have to disprove human consciousness in order to support this object consciousness, and it's not something that you're capable of doing.
[/quote]
I wouldnt have to disprove human consciousness to support this in the slightest. In fact its an explaination of human consciousness, im just not spelling it out that way because it would take too long. Fundamentally humans being conscious in our minds would dictate that all things are in some way - on a materialsit base of course, and that materialist base is what I am calling a Jit, a physical piece of consciousness-ness that is part of the piece that is all things that no one has yet found but which we keep coming closer to, originally (I think it was Plato) it was water, now its atoms etc etc etc.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
A few courses in chemistry, physics, and/or quantum mechanics would show that this isn't so random an event. All things are certainly acted on by outside forces, namely the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Gravitational force is in there too, but the others are more relevant to chemical bonds.
[/quote]
I never said it was random, I said the opposite. All things being acted on by forces is one thing, knowing your place and sitting in it is another. Humans are acted upon by gravity but that doesn't mean Gravity dictates we sit at our own desk in school.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
My definition of consciousness is purely spiritual.
[/quote]
Are you telling me your are a dualist playing devils advocat? If so - love it.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
There are other factors at work that would need to be explained and logically supported. Economic forces dictate how many of what objects are created. Also, they are discarded and left to sit in a garage or an attic unused until my conscious will decides to once again employ them...or throw them away. At which point the objects will be melted down and created into others or come to rest in a landfill. In addition, culture and historical circumstances are manifested in the arts. Why would stone or any other object desire to be created in the likeness of Aphrodite or George Washington? The list continues until every facet of human civilization has been discussed.
[/quote]
This is true, but I could attribute that to a poor effort on their part that they are stuck in a garage, and wonder how one item misaculously comes back into use from the garage. Why would stone want to be made into a statue and admired by all in sundry? I think I just answered that there. Economics do come into it, but then we could also say economics are dictated often by nature (natural disasters being an example) where different items get made, different things happen etc etc.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
I've argued against logical devices similar to what we're discussing here in theological contexts. Russel's Teapot, invisible pink unicorns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all suffer from a similar flaw. Semantics. The trouble with those devices is that they only become or remain logically viable as they are attributed more and more traits of the Abrahamic God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). In the same manner, your Jits can only become viable as they acquire traits and circumstances of human consciousness. Eventually you will come to the point that we are discussing the same thing and merely calling it a different name, and your argument becomes one of semantics and lacking any real substance.
[/quote]
That's what they said about string theory. Jits are more logical than the assumption that consciousness simply springs up out of nothing in a particular material form. How can you account for a materialsit human consciousness without something like Jits?
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='14 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255526366' post='44653']
I don't see why objectivism is necessarily dangerous. I consider skepticism to be far more concerning than the thought that what is is. However, skepticism is far more logically viable although entirely impractical.
[/quote]
If I answer that I will start a discussion that shouldn't be had at the dinner table - so I won't lol. Maybe we talk about this fellow in game somewhere quiet instead if we want to.
Z -
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='13 October 2009 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1255468330' post='44593']
Absolutely. I know the limitations of science very well. I typically employ the exact thing you're discussing in apologetic arguments, but I still don't understand how it really applies to your assertion about objects.
[/quote]
It has a number of layers really. For eample it either (as you said) can be used to demonstrate a false finding. Or, and this is what I like about it, it can be used to demonstrate that actually if you want to, you can accurately support any argument you like with quantity whether its valid or not - and for humans, quantity arguments appear to be very persuasive. The point is, you assume it is a false finding because you already believe objects have no consciousness, but if I am to claim objects in effect do, and if I fancied also claiming that in some sense they use us for their evolution, I can also use this quantity argument as support. The scientific findings for the evolution of man and the evolution of the cup are just as good as one another in terms of evidence to show things evolving- whether it be a consciousness we understand, or not.
------------------
Take for example when atoms form molecules, they swap electrons and somehow the electon knows exactly where it is supposed to go without any outside influence. Or take for example how sometimes you meet someone and you have an instant dislike for them or you go to a location and you feel at home even though you have never been there. Or what about that tennis racket that always won your games ever since you picked it up, it just seems to meld with you for some reason. Those sorts of energy fields could be considered a raw form of consciousness. The example of Jits and every original building block having a piece of consciousness-ness could be another way to look at it. How do you look at consciousness?
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='13 October 2009 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1255468330' post='44593']
Consider this: life has existed on this planet for millions of years previous to human existence. Why have their been no "objects" constructed until our arrival? You'd also run into a host of logical problems in giving objects consciousness, as objects don't really "evolve". Iron is iron no matter what you fashion it into, so why would some iron desire to be made into a sword and others made into a cannon which is far superior? Basically all of the elements have always existed on Earth, and they do so unchanged expect by human hands...for the most part.
[/quote]
Jits would constantly try to work in different ways for different achievements, why would clay want to become a kettle when there is nothing that is going to use a kettle? Clay would only try to manipulate you into making it into a kettle when it could see the benefit to itself, or just for the sheer fun of it perhaps. Objects have existed before us, just in different ways...not in kettle ways. You ask why iron would want to be made into a sword when it could be made into a cannon which is far superior...well...i'm not saying all Jits are smart ones, just that they are conscious. Why do some humans work as shop clerks when they could be pop stars or astronaughts which theoretically is a far superior job. Maybe some just like being shop clerks, there are lots of reasons for that one. I've already given you evidence for object evolution, it isn't biological, but that's the point. All the elements have already existed on earth and have constantly shifted, evolved and changed forms. For the most part, human hands just add to it.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='13 October 2009 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1255468330' post='44593']
You're mixing semantics with identity. A table becomes a chair when you break it apart and fashion into a device for sitting. Even if you're employing it as a chair in the immediate, anyone else will view it as a table. However, it's still human perception that defines the objects and their uses.
[/quote]
Humans define the name we give something and what we might use it for...not its use or its identity definitively. Subtle difference, but one that does make a large difference. The table/chair/object is just that, a thing that when thought of in a certain way becomes used in a certain way when perceived in a certain way. Now...as an object, all I need to do is get you to perceive me how I want you to and I get what I want. Sure I could argue Locke and his colours or whatever here to counter myself, but i've never been one for the simplest is always the best- and it still wouldn't negate the possibility.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='13 October 2009 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1255468330' post='44593']
... but that will do nothing to change the objective reality. If you stand still and look toward the horizon, you may believe that the Earth is flat...that doesn't change the fact that the Earth is indeed round. If you begin walking, or otherwise expand your data set by making other observations, the truth will be known to you.
[/quote]
Not to get too off topic...but I will...that's a very dangerous statement isn't it? Claiming an objective reality and fact. How do you know the earth is round?
[quote name='Shadowseeker' date='14 October 2009 - 06:17 AM' timestamp='1255497449' post='44635']
And to give a view of your question, Z, I would say no. Life in itself is not aiming for extinction, but rather survival. Evolution is just something we happen to read into it, and whether it is true still remains unclear.
[/quote]
Life can be aiming for survial and yet still be in a system designed to destroy it that we don't perceive can it not...although I suppose this does require your definition of what life is first lol
Z -
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='13 October 2009 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1255458355' post='44582']
I've got to admit that I didn't read that entire document, but there are a handful of things in it that I would object to. However, let's just stick with your post for now. As unfortunate as it may be, advances in neuroscience have all but proven consciousness to be entirely chemical/electrical, but you have me interested so I'd like to hear your thoughts on other origins of cognition and how exactly they allow for inanimate objects enslaving sentient beings. It sounds to me, in the first few lines of that document, that you begin talking about aliens forming a false history based on empirical observations. However, their subjective view of our past events does nothing to dictate how those events actually transpired in reality...or how they are currently evolving from our perspective.
[/quote]
To read the entire document would be...madness! Madness I tell you!
Advances in Neuroscience are one thing. They can show you links, causality, but they cannot show you more. Having studied Neuroscience, it did little to persuade me further than showing me a way of explaining things so that people could nod and showing a way of manipulating physical reactions and the mental reaction to those reactions. That doesn't prove consciousness is material. Yes, if you want to, you can easily argue it is, it doesn't make it persuasive for me. Let me state categorically if it isn't obvious, I am not a materialst. However...as you obviously adhere to it, I will use it.
The false history you speak of is just that in the example, it is used to demonstrate our own theoretically false historical findings - does that make sense? It is designed to show the problem with making assumptions from findings.
Consciousness in a materialist form can still account for objects having consciousness, which is the crux of the issue. We have a very narrow view of consciousness, if it isnt organic we give it no quarter, but I get ahead of myself I'll leave that for later if you want it. The point is, on a panpsychic materialist view consciousness comes in ...lets call it a jit. A jit is a physical item imbued in everything. The larger number of jits you add together, the more consciousness you have (im keeping it simple here). So, if we consider all things to be constructed from the same fundamental, then the organisation and density of the jits is the fundamental concept of consciousness. How that consciousness reveals itself, or what that consciousness is described as, is something else.
We believe we are the clever ones, that we went from a mug to a kettle, that it was our choice based on our need and our want. We take ockams razor and our arrogance and say, the kettle thrives because it is useful for us and we created it for us to use. What I'm saying is, there are lots of other ways to look at it, ways that make us the tricked fools of the picture and not the clever tool makers, or at the very least its a symbiotic relationship. If we consider the more complex someting is (and by that i mean the difference between a rock and a mug) the more things it gets to do, if Jits are in all things then would it not be feasible for the rock to want to be a mug? or something else. When does a table become a chair?
I realise you have to make vast leaps on my thought path and I'm sorry for that, it's a difficulty with my writing, but I'll start with that and let you pick at it
Z- Watcher and Sephirah Caelum
-
1
-
1
-
Much though I love Mozzeralla...BOOOOOOO they shall perish and drown in their over-exuberant olive oil baste! Kamikaze Mozzerella shall perish, with thier small mental capaity they will end up only sacrificing themselves for the deaths of bottles of ketchup.
Z -
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='13 October 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1255445082' post='44572']
We use objects. We give them meaning and uses within the framework of current or past social paradigms, and without our actions or intentions they would be useless. However, objects also influence social ideology either directly by making certain actions available (eg. the hammer or cotton gin) or indirectly by allowing us to make observations or reach abstract conclusions about reality (eg. the telescope). It's quite impossible for objects to use us literally.
[/quote]
To say that is to assume a materialist basis for consciousness, however if you are willing to consider other viable possibilities I would argue we are perhaps just slaves to the objects of the world - not the other way around.
I have been meaning to stick this file here for ages, see attached the debate/discussion I had with Kafuuka regarding the questions if you fancy it.
Z -
Happy Birthday Pample, may your drink ware always be poncy.
Z -
-
Happy birthday Luvva...I shall have to buy you some flowers and chocolates
Happy birthday MRD, may your lamp always have someone to rub it.
Z -
[img]http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp238/zleiphneir/Quests/KamishasKontraption.jpg[/img]
[b]Name:[/b] Kamisha's Kontraption
[b]
Physical Pain level:[/b] Comparably Minimal depending on use
[b]
Mental Pain level:[/b] Comparably large depending on use
[u]How to administer:[/u]
[b]1)[/b] Show your victim a number of horror films involving buzzing noises and bugs.
[b]2)[/b] Nail the ground spike into the ground
[b]3)[/b] Remove Hypedermic needle and make the victim slide their head through the metal hoop and into the head cap
[b]4)[/b] Tie the victims hands behind their back around the ground spike
[b]5)[/b] Use the cranking device to tighten the skull cap. The tighter you twist the crank, the more the metal rope will cut into the scalp.
[b]6)[/b] Place the mouth piece into the victims mouth so that the cheek graters rest inside the cheeks. The victim is then forced to smile, should they move their mouth when they scream or in fact move their mouth at all, the cheek graters will begin to slowly shred the inside of their cheeks causing both pain and a visual display of blood from the mouth.
[b]7)[/b] Inside each of the glass jars sits just one Hornet. Glass jars sit over each eye and each ear and are sealed. At this point, remove the seal giving the angry hornets full access to the victims eyeballs and ears.
[b]8)[/b] Should you wish to administer further physical pain simply take a hammer and hit the nose guard. This will loudly crush the victims nose, or, once the nose is already crushed, will cause further pain in an already painful wound. It will also of course jog the cheek graters.
[b]9)[/b] Again, should you wish to administer further physical pain, tighten the crank in order to drive the metal rope into the victims scalp and skull - don't go too far...else you'll hit brain and potentially make them lose consciousness.
[b]10)[/b] At this point the hornets may well have stung your victim a number of times in the ear, eardrum, eyeballs and around the eyes whilst making their loud buzzing noises. Hitting the ground spike or nose guard with the hammer will vibrate all of the metal unit causing the hornets to get more angry and agressive should they seem too lethargic.
[b]11)[/b] You may now insert the hypedermic needle into the victims jugular.
[b]12)[/b] Now, take your pick from either an adrenalin or a hallucinagenic substance and inject into the victim.
[b]13)[/b] In their current state of mind any hallucinagen will cause a very very bad trip, any adrenalin will cause further extreme panic and palpitations of the heart.
[b]14)[/b] inflict further physical damage or sit back and watch the show.
To be administered at the Gazeebo of Equilibruim on any who harm Bob.
Z- Darigan, Lady Renata, Death Bell and 1 other
-
3
-
1
-
Before I used (or even had) this account I had another one which I used with my 2 housemates who at the time also played the game. Can't remember what it was called but I never use it now.
Z -
-
well, anyone can guard Bob, all that takes is...well...guarding Bob
To become part fo the family that is the GoB though and be respected as such...come talk to me or PM me.
Z -
oh honestly could we get any more puerile? Its starting to be like watching some little kid play lego wars with choice phrases they picked up from some highly over-rated film like Juno.
The least they could have done was written an actual review, not some high foluted attention seeking insult.
I call slander.
Z -
But but...who will keep our lockets!!!
Good Luck with whatever you get up to. No doubt if you come back much much later rather than sooner I'll still be hanging with my best pal (aka Bob) so drop by
Z -
Happy Birthday you beautiful couture hat wearing clown
Z -
-
Just a message to ask all those who say they care about Bob...to look after him. If you don't know what that means...ask me, or read your guide. Anyone trying to become one of the guardians proper...this is a good time to prove your loyalties.
Z- Udgard, Fenrir Greycloth and Watcher
-
2
-
1
)
Kamisha For King Of Loreroot
in General Forum
Posted
I would say the logic is closer to this actually:
John wants to destroy this Misubishi, To us Mishubishis on the whole are a valuable part of the car industry we are a part of, Someone who will manage the car industry well should therefore not be going around destroying any Misubishis.
Its counter-intuitive to happily give the responsibility of managing something, to someone who has in the past proven that they want to destroy something associated with it. It's a bit like saying...lets give the management of the cattery to this young man who once drowned one cat in a bag instead of someone who never has.
Z