Organised Debate With Z

[Malaikat Maut]

Sorry for the double post...I know most message board frown on them.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='15 October 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1255624317' post='44745']
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.[/quote]
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]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[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]
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]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]
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]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]
Again, I believe we are granted free will by a higher power. I don't posit that the soul or human consciousness are material and bound within the confines of physical law.

[quote]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?[/quote]
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]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?[/quote]
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?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Malaikat Maut

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

[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

[Malaikat Maut]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='15 October 2009 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1255629852' post='44756']
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]
I suppose

[quote]Im not quite sure what you are trying to say to me with this to be honest?[/quote]
Just some food for thought. I though it was interesting and relevant to the point you were making about smaller particles (read everything) containing consciousness but suppressing it.

[quote]There's that thing I won't discuss at the dinner table again, sorry.[/quote]
Christianity or objectivism? And don't apologize to me, I've already got a migraine keeping up with what the current discussion.

[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]
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]I've answered that in every single post I've given you already...everything contains consciousness. Everything.
[/quote]
You've never answered (that I recall) where it comes from and what your definition of that term is. 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.

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 October 2009 - 07:30 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]
I am quite familiar with Young's double slit experiment and particle-wave duality. And actually it is not required to look at quantum to state that observations influence what is being observed. Classical mechanics work perfectly fine too.
eg. an X-ray of a fractured bone. We send a lot of gamma rays through the flesh and bone, with the bone absorbing a higher amount of photons and thus the bone casts a shadow while the flesh around it does not. In observing the bone, we added a lot of gamma rays to it, hence influencing it. You can do the same at atomic level and with single photons, with the same results: you cannot observe the atom without changing it's impulse a tiny amount.

Furthermore quantum effects are seldom relevant when looking at a large scale. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature and when applied to large quanta, statistics will converge to an equilibrium state. Entanglement and teleportation are interesting subjects, but it is extremely difficult to put two photons in a state of entanglement. I think it's less than a year since a new record for transporting a single pair of entangled photons a long distance away from each other was set, and while they did get across an entire desert, it does show the limits of quantum magic.
Years of watching Scifi shows have left me extremely skeptical when people mention quantum. 'We have no idea how it works, it is full of inconsistencies... it must be quantum mechanics! Have you heard about the particle wave duality? It is complicated and nobody understands it, and here we have something else no one understands so obviously that too is quantum.' And for people that think said Scifi approach is a good one, consider this: women often express duality, few men (if any) understand them... so women must be quantum physics.

[(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

[Malaikat Maut]

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='15 October 2009 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1255646314' post='44784']
Years of watching Scifi shows have left me extremely skeptical when people mention quantum. 'We have no idea how it works, it is full of inconsistencies... it must be quantum mechanics! Have you heard about the particle wave duality? It is complicated and nobody understands it, and here we have something else no one understands so obviously that too is quantum.'[/quote]
I don't know if you're addressing me or making a general observation. I hope I don't sound like that big a fallacious ass...


[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='16 October 2009 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1255693950' post='44822']
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]
Agreed. However, the logical validity of such a claim hangs on a handful of arguments you don't seem willing to engage or invoke.

[quote]Thats a more interesting argument. Firstly, a Jit containing consciousness doesn't make it necessarily conscious.[/quote]
Could you explain this please?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
I'd like to know your definition of consciousness and where you believe it originated. Surely any sound theory should be willing or able to evaluate such questions.

Also, you're definition of the term "nowhere" is a loose one. I don't believe it necessarily originates within this physical universe.

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='16 October 2009 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1255709632' post='44858']
I don't know if you're addressing me or making a general observation. I hope I don't sound like that big a fallacious ass...
[/quote]
It is a general thing and was meant as a support for using classical physics, which also knows the problem that observation implies influence. Why make it more difficult for people to understand?

[Malaikat Maut]

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='16 October 2009 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1255713076' post='44867']
It is a general thing and was meant as a support for using classical physics, which also knows the problem that observation implies influence. Why make it more difficult for people to understand?
[/quote]
I had never heard of or considered instances of classical mechanics which provide that kind of evidence. It's intriguing that it does though...

Edited October 16, 2009 by Malaikat Maut

[Shadowseeker]

Close due to inactivity.