- #106
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Please do, then.Originally posted by Mentat
Consciouness can, indeed, be defined.
Indeed.Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.
Live long and prosper.
Please do, then.Originally posted by Mentat
Consciouness can, indeed, be defined.
Indeed.Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.
Why do you need to use this semanticly complicatedOriginally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.
To be fed by humans.Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?
Originally posted by Adam
What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.
I really like both !Originally posted by Alexander
No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.
Originally posted by drag
Please do, then.
Indeed.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.
Then explain "aware"...Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.
If you'd like an example, how about the fact
that you are aware of my question right now?
Originally posted by Mentat
No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.
Originally posted by Alexander
Exactly what is the difference?
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !
Then explain "aware"...
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation.
That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement ), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness
I am referring to SCIENTIFIC explanation - theOriginally posted by Mentat
No, it does so because language is dependent
on it's own definitions. I could take any word,
and follow the "define that new term" road forever,
if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the
use of the word lacks concrete explanation.
Which happens as a response to another "firing"Originally posted by Mentat
Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons,
which happens during "conscious thought".
It is, indeed. But it just so happensOriginally posted by Mentat
because I clearly explained that it is a
paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.
Originally posted by drag
I am referring to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.
Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?
It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense.
Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?
Consciousness. If you wish to participate in aOriginally posted by Mentat
A scientific explanation for what term?
You are implying a fundumental differenceOriginally posted by Mentat
By what happens on a macroscopic level. I am no
different, at the subatomic level, than any other
physical entity, but that doesn't mean that I am
no different altogether.
Indeed. However, any rational path we everOriginally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't. It's paradoxical, and thus unusable.
A paradox is the end of a rational path.
Of course, so ?Originally posted by Mentat
Basically, I showed that trying to doubt everything
must include doubting the premise that tells
you to doubt everything. Thus you have no reason to
doubt everything, and (in fact) cannot take for
granted that you should do so.
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !
Causality. If you wish to participate in a
discussion it may be usefull to remember what
it's about, or at least a matter of good manners.
You are implying a fundumental difference
of the same entities and laws taken on a different
scale. I see no scientificly supported reasoning,
for now, that can justify such a claim.
Of course, so ?
Like I said to you once - there are turtles all the
way down... Wherever that is if at all...
That's why it's called a paradox - it makes no sense.
Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,Originally posted by Mentat
My sincerest apologies, but your side-stepping the
main argument has confused me.
I have. Thay are not different in terms ofOriginally posted by Mentat
How about the fact that Meteorology and Biology
are entirely different practices. Think about it.
wuli dedicated whole threads to this.Originally posted by Mentat
Then what is it's use?
Originally posted by drag
Because, as they say - "Assumption is the mother of all f**k - ups." .
(I can "hide" more letters in that expression if
someone here feels I should. )
Are you serious ?Originally posted by heusdens
What does "fork - up" mean?
(Sorry my english is not so good...)
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,
I meant CONSCIOUSNESS not causality. SORRY !
I have. Thay are not different in terms of
physical laws. The are different in terms of the
concepts we use to discribe them (different
verbal/mathematical/whatever discriptions) because
they display different levels and types of
order within the very wide bounderies that these
laws allow for.
Anyway, I want to understand clearly once and for
all - Do you think that consciousness is something
beyond/in addition to the laws of physics or not ?
wuli dedicated whole threads to this.
One potential use, that I believe is indeed
very usefull (but I can't absolutely prove it )
is that such a perspective means that you
must respect all views and opinions (because
tomorrow they might just turn out to be correct).
This is VERY important I think, both in life and
for a scientist, for example. Another potential
benefit is the seemingly likely chance that this
perspective will not allow you to make mistakes
when dealing with philosophical and sometimes
potentially other types of ideas.
Explain, please.Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.
In light of what you appear to mean by consciousnessOriginally posted by Mentat
Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant
to the discussion .
You do not understand what the PoE IS.Originally posted by Mentat
The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take
for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted.
This should be obvious, ...
Originally posted by drag
Explain, please.
You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).
I agreed to that ?!Originally posted by Mentat
They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.
Hmm... Maybe wuli's way works better at times.Originally posted by Mentat
This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.
Originally posted by drag
I agreed to that ?!
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.
That depends on how you define "different".Originally posted by Mentat
I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.
Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?
Originally posted by drag
That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.
What's unclear ?Originally posted by Mentat
No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.
Originally posted by drag
What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.
Live long and prosper.
Why is researching a single grain of sand calledOriginally posted by Mentat
Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.
Originally posted by drag
Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity.
Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarilyOriginally posted by Mentat
You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.
Originally posted by drag
Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.
Live long and prosper.